
Class M 7-3 13 
B()()k_ 



?s 



PRHSENTl-:i) IJY 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED; 



C? 



STRICTURES ON THE PECULIAR TENETS 



OF 



ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 



BY REV. WILLIAM PHlttipf* 

It \ 

LATB ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE WESTEBIT CdBISTIAN 
ADVOCATE. 



TO WHICH IS PREFIXED 

A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 



CINCINNATI: 
PUBLISHED BY J. F. WRIGHT & L. SWORMSTEDT, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHUROB. 

Stereotyped by J. A. cfemes & Co, 

1837. 






:^,f 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1837. 

BY J,yF. 'WRIGHT & L. SWORMSTEDT, 

in the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 



Gift 




Cincinnati : Methodist Book Room. 
R. P. Thompson, Printer. 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 028850 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The following chapters were first pubUshed in the 
Western Christian Advocate, in twenty-six numbers. 
The first number was dated, January 30th, 1835, the last 
appeared in Api-n 1836. In consequence of the estimation 
in which they were held, many poxco^c. frr^m diiFerent parts 
of the West, requested to have them collected and pu-b- 
lished in a volume. The Ohio Conference-of the Metho- 
dist fipiscopal church, at its last session held in Chilicothe, 
September 28th, 1836, unanimously requested our book 
agents to publish the strictures on Campbellism, as they 
are presented in this volume, now before the reader. 

That the work possesses real merit, every competent 
person who peruses it, will freely acknowledge. It must 
not, however, be forgotten, that it is a posthumous work 
and of course has more defects than though it had issued 
from under the author's own correcting hand. 

Indeed the writer did not contemplate, that what passed 
firom his pen, in the haste of the weekly press, would af- 
terwards be collected and formed into a volume. Had he 
Uved, large editions would have been made, fewer inac- 
curacies would appear, and a much more perfect w^ork 
would now be presented to the public. As it is, we are 
fully of the opinion that it will serve as a timely and effi- 

iii 



4 ADVERTISEMENT. 

cient check on one of the most pernicious systems of the 
present age, though touched under the imposing title of 
the Ancient Gospel. 

The editors havfe made no alterations in the following 
pages from what they "^ere when pubHshed in the Western 
Christian Advocate, except a very few verbal amend- 
ments, or the omission of those concluding or introduc- 
tory clauses in the numbers, by w^hich they are reduced to 
the form of chapters under appropriate heads. A table 
of contents is also added which the reader will find very 
convenient as an aid to reference. 

C. ELLIOTT. 

L. L. HAMLINE. 
Book Room, Cincinnati, January, i ^^'y- 



mm 



# 



MEMOIR OF THE AtJTHOK. 



The Rev. William Phillips, author of the 
following work, was born of pious parents, on 
the 7th day of May, 1797, in Jessamine coun- 
ty, state of Kentucky. He was religiously 
educated, was frequently impressed with the 
necessity of religion in early life, and often 
thought he would become a christian. When 
he was a youth, after laboring through the day, 
he v:ould spend the evening in writing the effu- 
.sions of his mind, both in poetry and prose. 
Mc.u/ pieces of these early productions are still 
in possession of his family. When he arrived 
at mature age, he turned his attention to politi- 
cal affairs, resisted the divine impressions, and 
abandoned his youthful employments. To free 
himself from religious restraint, he read scepti- 
cal books, till infidel sentiments made consid- 
erable impression on his mind; though he still 
retained a high regard for morality. In this 
state of mind he lived till he was settled in life, 
lind had the charge of a rising family. The 
following account of his conviction for sin, was 
related by himself at lovefeast, as a part of his 
religious experience, and communicated to us 
by one who heard him at the time. 

'*One morning," said he, ''I returned home 
in a melancholy state of feeling, after having 

A 2 5 



6 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 

spent the night from home, engaged in some 
political feat§.' 1 took my seat in a room by 
myself. Very soon my eldest son, about eight 

years old, cam^ t-o me, and said, B, has 

experienced reJigicn ; and then inquired. What 
is religion ? Here conviction seized my mind, 
for I could not answer the questions of the 
child. I said, — Is it possible, that I, who was 
blessed with a religious education, have raised 
a child to this age, who inquires of me what 
religion is, and I cannot tell him ! I then re- 
solved to reform my life, and examine the evi- 
dences of ehristlanity." 

He did not, like too many, delay this great 
work, but set about it with his usual diligence. 
He was soon thoroughly convinced of the divine 
reality of religion, and joined the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, as a seeker. He earnestly 
sought the Lord with bitter sighs and tears ; but 
his mourning was soon turned into joy. Five 
days after he joined the church, he received 
the evidence of his acceptance, at Old Fort 
meeting house, in Montgomery county, Ky. 
It was manifest to all, that he^Was^the subject 
of a great change. He shortly after Felt intense- 
ly the worth of souls, and believed that he w^as 
moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the gos- 
pel ; of which he afterwards gave ample testi- 
mony. On the 27th of December, 1828, he 
was licensed to preach as a local preacher, by 
the quarterly meeting conference of Mount 
Sterling circuit. In this capacity he labored 
with success, till he found that his field of labor 



MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR, 7 

was too circumscribed. He was duly recom- 
mended and received into the iCentucky confer- 
ence in the fall of 1831, at its 'session at Lou- 
isville, after he had labored as a local preacher 
for nearly three years. He was appointed suc- 
cessively to Winchester and Lexington circuits, 
and Newport and Covington station; having 
been reappointed to the two last places, so as to 
serve each two years in succession, except the 
time that elapsed betv/een his appointment by 
the General conference and the termination of ^. 
his conference year, which was still shortened*\. 
by his unexpected death. He received dea- = 
con's and elder's orders at the regular periods , 
in which these offices are usually conferred. ' 
He performed the duties of assistant editor to 
the Western Christian Advocate one year be-^' 
fore he was appointed to that office by the suf- 
frage of the General Conference in May, 1836. 
He was selected by this body, under the con- 
viction that his talents and attainments qualified 
him for the duties of an editor, and in full ex- 
pectation of much efficient editorial usefulness. 
But alas ! h^\mcertain are human expecta- 
tions. For three weeks and two days only, 
after the adjournment of conference wa:s he 
permitted to serve the church. 

On the 22d of June, 1836, he was confined 
to bed by a violent attack of fever. For seve- 
ral days previous to this, he felt manifest indi- 
cations of an approaching assault of severe 
sickness. During his confinement of six weeks 
and two days, he suffered much pain of body, 



8 MEMOIR OF THE AtJTHOR. 

which was bojne. with great patience. When 
the fever was high, he was affected with deli- 
rium, but when the fever abated, he was in the 
full exercise of his mental faculties. Shortly- 
after he was taken ill, he gave instructions to 
his afflicted wife, respecting her concerns and 
future residence, intimating to her, that the 
present disease would prove fatal. He also 
called his children to his bedside, and solemnly 
and without tears, yet deeply affected, gave 
them the charge and instructions of a parent 
on the verge of eternity. In his moments of 
self-possession, both when asked and unsoli- 
cited, he expressed himself strongly, yet very 
humbly, respecting his confidence in God and 
the enjoyments of religion, which he evidently 
possessed in a high degree. At one time, when 
it was thought he was djmg, he was asked, 
'' If all was well ?" he calmly rephed, " I feel 
for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." 
He then spoke of the goodness and mercy that 
had followed him all the days of his life. At 
another time, when hercomplained of a pain in 
his breast, it was said to him, ^^hen we gel 
to heaven we shall then be done suffering. 
Pain and affliction will be over, and God shall 
wipe tears from every eye. Do you expect to 
get there?" He replied, '^ Yes ; my soul 
sometimes exults at the prospect." And with 
a-faultering voice, he added, /'Yes, glory to 
God," At another time, he said to a friend, 
" My mind is entirely at peace. It is doubt- 
ful whether I shall recover from this sickness ; 



MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 9 

but to me death has no terror, the grave no 
gloom. If it were the Lord's will, I would 
like to live, that I might make some better pro- 
vision for the temporal and spiritual welfare of 
my family. But why do I talk thus ? The 
Lord is sufficient, I now wish to leave this 
with you as my testimony, that my hope is in 
Christ, through whose blood I shall conquer. 
I now feel none but Jesus can do suffering sin- 
ners good." Again he said, '' In retrospecting 
the past, contemplating the present, or looking 
forward to the future, I have nothing to fear." 
There is no doubt in the minds of any of his 
friends coiicerning his triumphant entrance into 
the paradise of God. He departed this life on 
the night of the 4th of August, 1836, at a half 
past twelve, in the city of Cincinnati. His 
remains were carried to Wesley chapel on Sa- 
turday the 6th, at 10 o'clock, A. M. where an 
impressive sermon was* delivered by the Rev. 
J. F. Wright, from Psalms 4G. 10. " Be still 
and know that I am God." His body is de- 
posited in the Methodist burying ground, till 
the resurrection of the just. In his death, the 
editorial corps lias lost a valuable member, and 
the church has been deprived of the services 
of one of her most faithful and efficient sons. 

As a christian^ he is to be ranked among the 
excellent. Entire reliance on the mercy of 
^od and the vicarious atonement of Jesus 
Christ, was the strongest and most prominent 
exercise of his mind, during his affliction ; and 
indeed this was the settled disposition of his 

1 * 



10 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 

very soul, from the time he first embraced re- 
ligion ; but which increased as he grew in 
grace, so as to form an abiding firm exercise of 
his mind. His reliance on the Redeemer was 
such, that, 

" His blood and righteousness 
He made his only plea." 

The expression. Lord have mercy ^ which he 
repeated much during his sickness, indicated to 
those who heard him, that reliance on Jesus 
Christ was, with him, permanent and unwaver- 
mg. In patience he possessed his soul to such 
a degree, that the severest pains could not wrest 
a murmur from his lips. . 

His ministerial gifts and qualifications were 
considered to be of the most useful kind. The 
following extract of a letter from an aged and 
experienced member of the church, will place 
the ministerial character of brother Phillips in 
a very amiable light :— 

" While we would cast in our mite in honor 
of his christian character, and for the encour- 
agement of others to follow his example, we 
being intimately acquainted with him for the 
two years he travelled Lexington circuit, Ky., 
our house being almost his constant home once 
in four weeks, as he traveled round his circuit, 
and we who have been acquainted with Meth- 
odist preachers for near fifty years, and som^ 
of us strict observers of men and things for 
more than forty years, are more than willing to 
give in our testimony to the christian andevan- 



1 



MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 11 

gelical or apostolical character of brother Phil- 
lips. And first, a more pious, studious, grave, 
cheerful, humble, loving, laborious and effec- 
tive preacher we have never k;iown. In a 
word, he seemed all goodness, not only for a 
short time, (as too many often are) but all the 
time alike good. In the pulpit, whether the 
congregations were large or small, he was like 
a lamp to light up their intellects. His doc- 
trines, so pure and evangelical; liis reasoning 
so profound, his language so appropriate, that 
all acknowledged him much of a master work- 
man. In company he was very social and 
friendly 5 in our family he was always instruc- 
tive ; unto the aged he was reverential; with 
the young he was familiar, and acted much of 
the philosopher ; while all his language and 
deportment seemed seasoned with grace and 
warm affection. We recognize him this mo- 
ment, fresh in our memories. His almost con- 
stant practice in the winter nights, was to in- 
struct our daughters and sons in the rudiments 
of singing, as alsx) in the way of salvation, with 
several other branches of useful instruction. He 
often put us in^ mind of the old Methodist 
preacher, that some of us knew* nearly fifty 
years ago in old Virginia, that used to preach 
at my grandfather's. We were acquainted also 
with the circuit preachers that preached at my 
father's for several years in Kentucky, where 
the preachers made their home. Among those 
preachers were but few Phillipses to be found. 

For twenty years or more, we have not known 

4 



12 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 

a more excellent and profitable man than brother 
William Phillips. But he is gone to glory. 
Is it possible that we are to hear from him no 
more this side of heaven ?" 

To this unadorned and simple testimony- 
other accounts precisely correspond. 

His attainments as a writer place him deser- 
vedly, if not among the foremost writers, at 
least in that respectable class which would raise 
him several degrees above mediocrity. But as 
he was called away at the early age of thirty- 
nine, and therefore before he had opportunity 
to come fairly before the public, it would be 
difficult to present him in his real character be- 
fore the world. His writings in the Western 
Christian A-dvocate, over his proper signature, 
have evident marks of accurate research, sound 
judgment and respectable attainments. Had 
he turned his attention to writing at an earlier 
period of his life, or had Providence spared him 
longer, he would probably have held a promi- 
nent place among the writers of the present 
age. 

Brother Phillips was a little above the ordi- 
nary height, and rather spare. His personal 
appearance was not only agreeable, but might 
be considered dignified. His manners were 
courteous and pleasing, manifesting a disposi- 
tion to be friendly to all; so that even the 
stranger was often prepossessed in his favor ; 
but he was respected most by those who knew 
him best. He was truly a son of peac^; and 



MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 13 

though he considered it his duty to contend 
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the 
saints, he delighted not in controversy. Yet 
into this he was willing to enter sooner than 
yield up any portion of truth. 



B 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introdaction of the subject — Mr. Campbell's doctrine of 
Baptism stated — Texts brought to support Gampbellism 
considered, viz. Acts ii. 38. Jo. iii. 5. &c. Mark xvi, 
16. IPet. iii. 21. Titusiii. 21. 

Ours is a fluctuating world. Its fashions 
pass away, and the opinions of communities 
and of men so frequently cliange, that old things 
sometimes become neiu. We Live in an age 
when some of the errors of antiquity have 
been revived and remodeled, and forced upon 
the world under the imposing name of "the 
ancient gospel ;" but more commonly, and ap- 
propriately called '' Gampbellism," after Mr. 
A. Campbell, their chief propagator. And as this 
system^ which is in reality '' another gospel,'^'' 
has made the west its principal theatre, where, 
though maimed and crippled, it is still strug- 
gling for existence, some notice of it may not, 
perhaps, be " labor in vain." The present is, 
therefore, designed as the first of a few essays 
upon this subject. 

There seems a remarkable proneness in fall- 
en man, to make " the kingdom of God meat 
and drink,^^ by substituting rites, ceremonies, 
and objects of sense, for spiritual things, and 

15 



16 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

spiritual enjoyments. That man, after his ex- 
pulsion from paradise, retained some knowl- 
edge of the true God, is a reasonable conclu- 
sion, and is clearly deducible from the 1st chap- 
ter of the epistle to the Romans. But " when 
they knew God, they glorified him not as 
God." The idea of a Spiritual Being, to 
whom they could have no access through the 
medium of external sense, did not suit their 
depraved minds. Hence, forgetting that God, 
whom they could not see, they adored the sun, 
moon, and stars, and creeping reptiles, and 
graven images, which they could see and feel. 
And thus it is probable that the propensity 
afiove mentioned, led the world into idolatry. 
At an early period of the christian church, some 
of the fathers, yielding to this propensity, en- 
deavored to give their religion a degree of splen- 
dor, that it might make a powerful impression 
upon the senses ; but their efforts corrupted the 
pure stream of gospel truth, and marred the 
beauty and spirituality of divine v/orship. Wit- 
ness, the invocation of saints, the veneration of 
relics, and the use of pictures and images — 
things unsanctioned by the Word of God, and 
tending to divert the mind from the true object 
of worship. Here we see man's disposition 
to substitute material things for spiritual ; and 
this disposition, aided, perhaps, by a too literal 
interpretation of a few passages of Scripture, 
has been a most fruitful source of error to the 
christian church, as facts developed in her his- 
tory, abundantly prove. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 17 

The Roman Catholic church, receding from 
the simplicity and purity of worship, as taught 
in the Bible, arrived at a poiyat where the idea 
of feeding in a spiritual manner^ hy faith, 
upon the broken body and shed blood of our 
Lord, was too refined and mysterious for her 
votaries ; and, hence, seizing upon the Savior's 
words, " This is my body — this is my blood" 
'—and interpreting them to mean just what 
they say, they taught that the consecrated bread 
and wine, are converted into the real and lite- 
ral body and blood of the Lord, so that the 
identical body which had been born of the Vir- 
gin Mary, is offered by the priest and eaten by 
the communicants. Thus originated transub- 
stantiation in the 13th century-— a doctrine, 
which, though opposed by the common sense 
of every man, and the obvious import of Scrip- 
ture, is still retained by that church. 

But long before transubstantiation was heard 
of, another error, originating from the same 
fountain, had been brought into the church. 
Nicodemus could not comprehend how a man 
could be born of the Spirit, and this matter 
seems to have been equally dark and mysteri- 
ous to some of the early christians ; who en- 
deavoring to render the subject tangible, sought 
a substitute for this spiritual birth, and found 
it in water. A few elliptical phrases and sen- 
tences in the New Testament, such as, "be 
baptized for the remission of sins" — " be bap- 
tized and wash away thy sins"— afforded a 
pretext for this change. Thus the Scripture 

b2 



18 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 

doctrine, of justification by faith, in the mer- 
its of the Redeemer, was set aside. This was 
one of the first departures of the church from the 
sacred truths of the gospel, and to this vital er- 
ror may be traced much of that ignorance of 
spiritual things, and that intellectual gloom 
which covered the church in the dark ages of 
papal supremacy. 

. That the church of Rome, (after having con- 
verted the sacraments into matter, and taught 
that '* sensible material things, v/ork by the Al- 
mighty power of God,") should receive this 
vi^w of the efficacy of an ordinance, and teach 
that, '* baptism, when administered by a priest 
having a good intention, of itself applies the 
merits of Christ to the person baptized, and 
washes away all previous sins,'" is not surpris- 
ing. But who could have dreamed that a Prot- 
estant reformer, in the nineteenth century, 
claiming exemption, alike^ from Catholicism 
and '' sectarianism," would rake up water re- 
generation from the dregs of papal rubbish, 
and make it a leading feature of his reforma- 
tion ? This Mr. Campbell has done. I do 
not assert that his views on this subject are pre- 
cisely those of the Catholic church, but they 
are substantially the same. Each makes bap- 
tism necessary to the remission of sins — a sine 
qua non in the salvation of man. The follow- 
ing quotations from Mr. Campbell's Millennial 
Harbinger-^ea?/r«, No. 1, will show that we do 
not misrepresent him : '* If we speak Scrip- 
turally we must use these terms (immersion, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 19 

regeneration, and conversion,) as all descriptive 
of the same thing." "Remission of sins can- 
not in this life be received or enjoyed previous 
to immersion." " Immersion alone is the act 
of turning to God." " No man can enjoy the 
peace of God, or the hope of heaven, until he 
is immersed for the remission of sins." These 
assertions clearly make baptism a saving ordi- 
nance ; and I know not that any Papist ever 
used stronger language in pointing out its im- 
portance. And it is well known that these 
views are received and promulged by his ad- 
herents ; who, universally, urge " obedience*^ 
(by which they mean immersion,) as the 
MEANS of obtaining remission of sins. Conse- 
quently,- Mr. G's '' ancient gospeV^ is literally 
a gospel of water, for upon its principles, with- 
out water there could be no salvation ; and his 
reformation, taking a retrograde direction, goes 
back to embrace a radical error, which before 
the time of Luther, had almost driven the spir- 
it of Christianity from the church ; and which, 
if now received, must reform us back to that 
gloomy period, and enshroud us in darkness, 
far worse than that which came upon Egypt. 

The writings of Mr. Campbell form the creed 
of his followers. To ascertain his opinion 
upon any fundamental point, is to learn theirs. 
The quotations already made, show his views 
of baptism to be nearly related to the Papisti- 
cal notion of the " opus operatum'^ of the sac- 
raments ; but, to make " assurance doubly 
sure," and for the information of those who 



20 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

may not have been favored with this new ver- 
sion of Popery, the following additional quota- 
tions, from his " Millennial Harbinger," are pre- 
sented : " It is not our faith in God's promises 
of remission, but our going down into the wa- 
ter, that obtains the remission of sins,^^ " Im- 
mersion is the means divinely appointed for 
our actual enjoyment of this first and greatest 
of blessings." The reader will understand 
that the great blessing mentioned here is jus- 
tification or remission of sins. And this, we 
are told, is to be obtained by " going down into 
the water." 

Now it is not intended in these essays to 
give a higher coloring to any feature of Camp- 
bellism, than his writings, and the practice of 
his adherents will warrant. Such an attempt 
would do them injustice, and could only result 
in the mortification and disgrace of the writer. 
Mr. Campbell is not, therefore, charged with 
placing the efficacy of baptism in the intention 
of the baptizer, or with teaching that baptism, 
of itself literally washes away sin, and clelnses 
the soul. These notions are not his ; and he 
has enough to answer for without bearing the 
sins and absurdities of others. He believes, 
or afifects to believe, that baptism is the means 
through which justification is extended to the 
sinner ; and that we are only authorized to 
expect pardon in this act of obedience. Soph- 
istry, itself, cannot torture his language, in the 
above quotations, into any thing lower than is 
here stated ; nor will the attempt be made ; 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 21 

for it is well known that his followers uni- 
formly proclaim, remission of sins through 
baptism^ as the burden of their song*. And 
now, his belief on this point being settled, we 
join issue. He affirms , we deny. And not- 
withstanding the difficulties often attendant 
upon efforts for the establishment of a negative, 
we feel, in this case, fully competent to the 
task. But, in order that the mind of the read- 
er may see the extent of its claims, and be 
the better prepared for its refutation, we pr(> 
pose, first of all, an examination of those texts 
of Scripture upon which his doctrine mainly 
depends for its establishment. 

The point before us is the principal arch in 
the superstructure of Campbellism ; and the 
keystone of this arch is found in Acts, ii, 38. 
" Repent and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." From the expression, " for'the remis- 
sion of sins," it is argued that baptism is the 
*mean^ of obtaining this blessing. Much stress 
is, also, laid'on the circumstances and situation 
of Peter when he spoke these words. To him, 
it is said, the keys of the kingdom had been 
committed, that acting under the authority of the 
King, he was then opening its door for the 
world to enter in ; and hence, that his words 
are entitled to no ordinary degree of credit. Be 
it so. We neither wish to detract from the im- 
portance of the occasion, nor to question the 
correctness of the instructions. But none of 



22 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

these proves that Peter taught on the day of 
Pentecost, what Campbellites teach now ; nor 
is it at all probable that the Jews, familiar with 
the writings of Moses and the Prophets, would 
thus understand him. 

An elliptical, or abbreviated form of speech, 
was common among the Jews, and abounds in 
the Scriptures ; so that many phrases and sen- 
tences, taken literally, would convey a mean- 
ing false and foolish, and never designed by 
those who used them. Some have supposed 
this mode of speech to have originated from 
the fact, that there is no term in the Hebrew 
language which expresses to signify or denote. 
But, be this as it may, the existence of this 
manner of speaking is unquestionable. Take, 
for example, the following Scriptures: "The 
three baskets are three days," Gen, xl. 18. 
'' The ten horns are ten kings," Dan, vii. 24. 
" The field is the world," Matt, xiiiv, 38. 
" The seven candlesticks are the seven chy^rch- 
es," Rev, i. 20. *' This is my body «." and 
" this is my blood," 3Iatt, xxvi. 26. 27.*Suchf 
expressions, very common in both,, the Old and 
New Testaments, cannot be understood in^^ 
literal sense. The most ordinary reader, seeing 
the folly of a literal interpretation, will under- 
stand the substantive verbs according to the He- 
brew idiom : " The three baskets signify three 
days." " The field repPvEsents the world," 

Now the language of Peter on the day of 
Pentecost, is somewhat in character with the 
above passages, and is susceptible of a similar 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED* 23 

interpretation. Hence we may understand him 
as saying, " be baptized to represent remission 
of sins." This interpretation cannot be called 
unreasonable. The character of the speaker and 
the hearers, and the nature of the discourse, 
combine to prove its correctness. He and they 
were Jews. It was natural for him to adopt 
this short, elliptical phraseology of his nation ; 
and equally natural for them to hear by the 
same rule. Moreover, they had been reared 
in the observance of a religion burdened with 
rites and ceremonies, some of which, looking 
back, represented events that were past, while 
others, taking a prospective view, pointed cut 
things to come. And these sacrifices, though 
offered for the sins of the people, were not 
intended to take away sin ; but only to repre- 
sent a better sacrifice, and point out their de- 
pendence on Him for remission. With this 
knowledge, and under all these circumstances, 
the^multitude listen to Peter's discourse. He 
is ^folding a new dispensation of the king- 
dom of Gpd, which, like the former, has its 
appropriate rites and ordinances. He com- 
mands baptism "for the remission of sins." 
They know the meaning of the sin-offerings 
of their religion ; they understand the emblem- 
atical import of its rites and sacrifices; and, 
above all, they are Hebrews, familiar with the 
idiom of their nation, and know the true sense 
and force of its expressions. From all which, 
it is clear that they received baptism according 



24 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

to the above exposition to represent^ or in ref- 
erence to the '^remission of sins." 

The words of Ananias to Saul, " Arise, and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord," are, also, appealed 
to in support of water regeneration / but they 
afford it no more support than the former, be- 
ing subject to the same rules of interpretation. 
Further evidence might be adduced in favor of 
the construction we have given to these texts. 
It would be easy to show that it is not forbid- 
den, even by the genius of our own language. 
But brevity is our object. 

Furthermore, whatever may be the force and 
value of the foregoing interpretation, one thing 
is certain, that faith is represented in scripture 
as the great means of justification. And this is 
plainly implied in the text and expressed in 
the context. It is embraced in the words^ in 
the name of Jesus Christ ^ because this ex- 
pression plainly implies that those who are bap- 
tized in or into his name, are believers in Christ. 
The thing is clearly expressed. " Then they 
that gladly received i. e. believed his word were 
baptized." verse 41. And they are spoken of 
after their baptism as persons who believed^ 
verse 44. For though on their repenting and 
believing, they were according to the tenor of 
the gospel covenant, entitled to the forgiveness 
of their sins ; they are here called on to repent 
and submit to the ordinance of baptism in or- 
der to receive the same blessing of pardon or 
jiistification. And we have seen already that 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 25 

faith was presupposed. Christ, for wise rea- 
sons in receiving baptism appointed this solemn 
rite as a token of their taking up the christian 
profession in a public manner, and there could 
not be any sufficient evidence of the truth of 
their repentance and faith, if this precept of 
Christ had not been obeyed. But the absur- 
dity of Mr. Campbell's interpretation of this 
passage, by which faith and true repentance are 
substantially rejected, will appear in the future 
treatment of this subject, where justification 
by faith will be established, and baptism itself 
rescued from the perverting use to which it is 
employed in the New Gospel proclaimed 'first 
at Bethany. 

The views we have given of Acts ii. 38, are 
believed to be the primary meaning of the text. 
To adopt the Campbellite assumption, that 
" the Scriptures mean what they say, and say 
what they mean,^^ and hence, from the phrase, 
" for the remission of sins," to argue that Pe- 
|er taught that pardon could only be had 
through baptism, would drive us, at once, into 
the absurd fiction of transubstantiation. That 
they stand pretty much upon the same ground ; 
that the Romanist has as much authority for 
the " real presence,^' as Mr. Campbell has for 
his notions of baptism, and that the mode of 
interpretation resorted to for the establishment 
of the latter, would prove equally formidable 
in behalf of the former, are all unquestionable. 
And further, we remark, that Campbell's meth- 
od of obtaining remission of sins, contradicts 
2 C 



26 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

a large portion of the New Testament, and 
thereby involves Christianity itself in inextrica- 
ble difficulties. This will be shown in the 
progress of these strictures. 

But though the first and principal design of 
baptism, as the initiatory rite, is to denote or 
represent the washing away of sin, "by the 
Spirit of our God ;" yet, this is not its only 
design. It is, also, a means of grace ; and in 
a subordinate sense, may be administered, lite- 
rally, " for the remission of sins.'' It is in the 
performance of duty, and not in neglect of it, 
that we are authorized to expect the favor of 
God. Hence, we repent, pray, confess to God, 
are baptized, and receive the sacrament of the 
Lord's supper " for the remission of sins ;" and 
perform every other known duty in reference 
to the same object. But having obeyed in all 
these, we are taught not to trust in any one of 
them, nor in sW of them, but to look to a high- 
er source, and through another means, for the 
enjoyment of this greatest of present blessings. 
Indeed, our justification does not depend so 
i?iuch upon Mr. Campbell's institution for the 
remission of sins, as upon either repentance or 
prayer. 

Religious truth is of all things the most im- 
portant ; because it involves the concerns of 
eternity. Campbellism claims to be the truth, 
" the ancient gospel ;" and its devotees, pro- 
fessing to take "the Book" alone for their 
guide, proclaim baptism, as the only appointed 
means for obtaining remission of sins. This 



m 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 27 

doctrine, if true, ought to be known ; and if 
false^ it ought to be exposed, for the salvation 
of immortal souls is connected with it. We 
wish to learn its true character, and, therefore, 
continue the investigation of its claims to the 
sanctions of Scripture. 

Two of the main props of this doctrine were 
formerly considered, and found not to sustain 
it. The following are, also, pleaded in its be- 
half; let us see if they will be more successful : 
" Except a man be born of w^ater and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God," John iii. 5. " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16. "The 
like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
nowsaveus," \Peter\\\,2\, In the firs t-of these 
quotations a birth of water is made necessary 
in order to our entering *' the kingdom of God," 
and in the last two, a saving virtue seems to be 
attached to baptism ; and hence, Campbellites 
infer, that '' remission of sinS" can only be had 
through immersion. But were we to admit, as 
a^sum^d in the premises, that baptism is indis- 
pensable for the salvation of the soul, and in 
order to its admission into the kingdom of glo- 
ry, it certainly could not lead necessarily to the 
conclusion, that it is the means of justification; 
for as justification, or remission of sins is not 
the only prerequisite to the enjoyment of hea- 
ven, baptism, though necessary for that enjoy- 
ment, might be designed for a different purpose. 
But the premises and the inference are alike 
inadmissible. To suppose that God has made 



28 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

the eternal happiness of man so precarious, that 
it depends upon an ordinance, the performance 
of which is often inexpedient, and sometimes 
impossible, is repugnant to Scripture facts, and 
derogatory to the wisdom and goodness of the 
Divine Being. 

But if salvation can be had without baptism, 
how are we to understand the above texts ? To 
understand the Savior's meaning, when he con- 
nects ivater with the Spirit as necessary to 
entering " the kingdom of God," we must con- 
sider that the phrase '' kingdom of God" is 
variously applied in the Scriptures. Camp- 
bellites will readily admit that it signifies the 
church on earth ; and St. Paul, when he says, 
" that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
dom of Godj'' clearly applies it to the church 
in heaven. And as the apostle tells us in the 
third chapter of Ephesians, that the church in 
heaven and that on earth make hut one family, 
we are authorized to conclude, that the Savior 
embraces both of these imports in the phrase, 
" kingdom of God." This premised, his mean- 
ing is obvious. The church needs a badge of 
discipleship, a visible line, or mark to separate 
her members from the world. This she has 
in baptism ; and consequently, baptism becomes 
necessary in order to exhibit to others our faith 
in Christ, and externally to entitle us to the 
immunities of the church. This ordinance is, 
therefore, important, both in its symbolic char- 
acter, as representing the washing away of sin, 
and as the initiatory rite, conferring, so far as 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 29 

man can judge, the privilege of church mem- 
bership. The church can only receive us 
through baptism ; and hence, this ordinance is 
necessary to our entering '' the kingdom of 
God," the visible church. But this institution 
and the privileges it confers, are external ; and 
though necessary for the church on earth, do not 
regenerate the soul, or prepare it for the king- 
dom in heaven. This is the work of the Holy 
Spirit, not of water ; therefore, in the verses 
that follow the text, the Savior, dropping all 
allusion to the water, urges the necessity of be- 
ing "born of the Spirit," and illustrates the 
nature of this birth. Thus, '^ the kingdom," 
in one sense, implying the church below, and 
baptism being the visible sign of entrance, we 
see why the Savior t^aid, " except a man he 
born of water he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God ;" and, also, that the necessity for this 
bnth would remain, though it were destitute 
of a spiritual meaning, .and in ko sense a means 
of grace. 

Keeping these remarks before him, the read- 
er will readily comprehend the other quota- 
tions. ^'?He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." Baptism here, cannot be under- 
stood as being the means of spiritual regenera- 
tion, because the apostle expressly declares, 
" whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, 
is born of God." Now men may certainly 
believe this before they are baptized ; but "who- 
soever believeth" it "is born of God;" of 
course, baptism is not the means of this spirit- 

•c 2 



30 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

ual birth. " He that belie veth" '« with the 
heart unto righteousness," is justified, and sa- 
ved from the guilt of sin ; but he is not saved 
externally — he lacks the seal, and neither the 
church nor the world can recognize him as a 
member of the kingdom, till he enters by the 
door of baptism. 

These observations, applying with equal 
force to the often quoted passage from Peter, 
may be thought to render further remarks un- 
necessary ; but here we wish to be a little more 
definite. When Peter says, '' the like figure 
whereunto baptism doth now save us," he calls 
baptism a figure or emblem. If it be a ''fig- 
ure," the salvation it brings can only be figura- 
tive, not real and literal. The figure of a man 
cannot perform his v/ork. All that it can do, 
is to represent his appearance and actions. 
Consequently, baptism, as a figure, can only 
*' save us" in a figurative, or emblematic sense, 
by separating us from the \^orld, and pointing 
out remission of sins by the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit. The baptism of water, then, bears 
the same relation to the visible church, that the 
baptism of the Spirit does to the invisible. 
Without the former, the sign and figure, no 
person can be received as a legitimate subject 
of the visible kingdom ; so, also, without the 
latter, the thing signified, no person can belong 
to the invisible, or spiritual kingdom. 

One remark to prevent misunderstanding. In 
speaking of baptism as necessary to induct us 
into the church, we do not mean immersion, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 31 

nor do we exclude it. Our business, at pre- 
sent, is not with the mode. We mean the ap- 
plication of water, by pouring or otherwise, by 
an authorized minister, in the names of the sa- 
cred Trinity. 

Another passage relied upon in favor of water 
regeneration^ is Titus iii. 5 : " Not by works 
of righteousness which we have done, but ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- 
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly, 
through Jesus Christ our Savior." This text 
is adduced in proof of Mr. Campbell's asser- 
tion, that " regeneration and immersion are two 
names for the same thing ;" and hence the in- 
ference that we are saved by immersion. But 
it is by no means certain that this passage has 
any allusion to immersion, or to water baptism 
in any other mode. The latter clause of the 
quotation, '' which he shed on us," teaches 
that we are saved by something " shed," or 
poured out upon us ; and this cannot be im- 
mersion. We are aware, however, that Mr. 
C. would have us confine the relative " which" 
to the i' renewing of the Holy Ghost;" but 
there is" no good reason for this. Indeed, ac- 
cording to his own argument on another text, 
and fof a different purpose the relative ''which" 
must here be confined exclusively to the " wash- 
ing of regeneration ;" and, consequently, the 
notion of immersion is entirely excluded from 
the passage. But there is not sujQScient ground 
for confining the relative to either of the pre- 



32 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

ceding clauses, to the exclusion of the other. 
It most probably takes for its antecedents, both 
" the washing" and the " renewal," and hence, 
the ivaskiiig, by vrhicli we are saved, is pour- 
ed out upon us by the Holy Spirit. 

But granting the possibility that there is in 
this passage an allusion to the application of 
water in baptism, what is the conclusion ? 
That "baptism is inseparably connected with 
remission of sins," and that it is another term 
for regeneration ? Certainly not. No man in 
his senses, whose mind was uninfluenced by 
the dogmas of the Pope of Rome, could arrive 
at such, a conclusion. The allusion to baptism, 
if there be any in the text, is found in the word 
"washing." Let it be conceded that this 
means baptism. It is called "the washing of 
regeneration ;" therefore, Campbellites would 
'have us believe, that baptism and regeneration 
mean the same thing. And thus, by a process 
unknown to all but themselves, the ivashing 
becomes the thing washed; and the act of 
cleansing a garment is converted into the gar- 
ment itself ! Truly such logic is as superla- 
tively ridiculous and incomprehensible, as the 
nonsensical jargon of a Mormoiiite's unknown 
tongue. 

The absurdity of the attempt to prove from 
this text, the sameness of baptism and regene- 
ration, is too glaring to require a serious refu- 
tation \ and to take the phrase literally, and 
suppose that the noun, "regeneration," re- 
quires to be washed, would involve an equal 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 33 

absurdity. Upon the supposition, then, that 
the passage has any reference to baptism, the 
only rational conclusion is, that the " washing 
of regeneration," implies a washing in refer- 
67206 to regeneration ^ and hence, we arrive at 
our former definition of the design of baptism ; 
that it represents remission of sins '' by the re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit, shed on us through 
Jesus Christ our Savior." 

And now, reader, we have examined the 
principal texts, upon which the notion of re- 
mission of sins, through baptism, depends for 
its support. The examination has shown that 
they have very little of the appearance^ and 
nothing of the reality of that doctrine in tlaem. 
These Scriptures are its main dependence ; 
they do not sustain it, nor can it be sustained 
from the Bible. What, then, has given,it cur- 
rency, and kept it alive thus far ? Let those 
who are familiar with the cunning sophistry of 
A. Campbell, and the bold dogmatism of his 
coadjutors, answer the question. 

Having said that the Scriptures we have no- 
ticed, are the principal props of this doctrine, it 
may be necessary to observe that they are not 
all. We, it is true, have been able to discern 
nothing else that seems to bear any resemblance 
to it, nor do we recollect that Mr. Campbell 
claims more ; but some of his followers have 
had their mental optics so strengthened by the 
light of this neiv gospel, as to discover proofs 
of water regeneration everywhere. For instance, 
one of these knowing ones, having read in the 
2 * 



34 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

first cnapter of Genesis, that " the Spirit of 
God moved upon the face of the waters," finds 
it an irresistible proof of this doctrine, and pro- 
claims that '' the Spirit which moved on the 
face of the waters in the beginning, has never 
left them, and that those who rise from ' the 
womb of waters,' instantaneously inhale that 
Spirit." And another of the same school tells 
his hearers, that " laaier was not included in 
the curse pronounced by the Creator at man's 
expulsion from paradise ; and this is clear proof 
that water was designed to be the means of our 
restoration to the image and favor of God." 
But teaving the reader to determine whether 
these champions of reform have not got ahead 
of their Master, we close for the present. 



1 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 85 

CHAPTER II. 

FAITH. 

Introduction— literal meaning — Baptism, prayer and con- 
fession as conditions of justification — justification by 
faith alone — justifying faith as combining reliance and 
trust with assent — faith as connected with pardon does 
not include Baptism or other works — faith of Abraham 
considered — objections against the doctrine of faith as 
tho condition of justification. 

The reader will bear in mind that me con- 
dition on which remission of sins is offered to 
the human family, is still before ns. It has 
been shown that Campbell and his followers 
proclaim immersion, as. this condition ; ah^we 
have said that they consider it the only meUns 
of obtaining this blessing. But knowing that 
he has published ministers who oppose his re- 
formation, as '' licensed slanderer's,^^ and that his 
satellites are famous for endeavoring to excite 
public sympathy, by crying out, " misrepre- 
sentation and persecution,^' and above all, v/ish- 
ing to do no man injustice, we pause to explain. 

The views of Mr. Campbell, as we under- 
stand them, do in reality exclude both repent- 
ance and faith (such as the Scriptures require), 
from having any thing to do with obtaining re- 
mission of sins ; but we wish our readers to 
understand that he speaks of something he calls 
faith, and reformation^ a« necessary to ao- 



36 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSE!). 

'Company immersion. And further, we would 
not be understood to insinuate that he considers 
immersion as the procuring, or meritorious 
cause of remission. On this subject, so far as 
we know, his views are Scriptural. And though 
we do not think with the Indian, that two truths 
would palliate one falsehood, yet amid such a 
mass of error, we rejoice to find 07ie truth to 
commend. The following quotation will show 
his sentiments in his own words : " Immersion, 
nor faith, procures remission. The blood of Je- 
sus, through the favor of God, procures, faith ap- 
prehends, and baptism takes hold of the boon 
of Heaven, or is the means of our enjoyment." 
With this explanation we resume the subject. 
Now, had Mr. Campbell been as wise as his 
followers consider him great, and as well ac- 
quainted with the science of salvatio7i, as he 
professes to be with classic lore, and with the 
wisdofn of theological schools, immersion as 
the means of justification, would have formed 
no part of his creed. This we say with con- 
fidence, and appeal to the judgment of the in- 
telligent, candid, and unprejudiced reader, who 
may have perused what was written, in con- 
firmation of what we say. He will at once 
respond, that the Scriptures, there examine, 
do not sustain the doctrine. And as these texts, 
which are mainly relied upon to prove the doc- 
trine in question, do not prove it, consequently, 
that doctrine falls to the ground, and presents our 
reformer to the world as another monument of the 
folly of the attempt to improve the Word of God. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED* 87 

That the literal reading of a few passages of 
Scripture, seems to favor the doctrine we op- 
pose, has been conceded* But what of this ? 
Shall we adopt the Campbellite's mode of con- 
struing Scripture, that ** it means, literally, 
what it says,^^ and hence, conclude the doctrine 
true ? To do this, would drive us to surrender 
the leading doctrine of Christianity, and to ^d- 
mit that the Bible teaches the most absolute 
nonsense. Our Lord, when handing to his dis- 
ciples the bread used at the '' Last Supper," 
said, " Take, eat ; this is my body." This, ac- 
cording to the rule adopted, literally means 
what it literally says. Then the bread was 
literally transubstantiated into the real body of 
the Savior, and eaten by his disciples. Akd as 
he had but one body, Judas must have betrayed 
a phantom, and Pilate crucified an imaginary 
something, we cannot tell what, but certainly 
not our Lord himself, not his body, for thSt had 
been eaten by the eleven disciples a few^hours 
before. Thus we are driven to the conclusion, 
that Christ was not crucified ; and hence, to 
hope for *' redemption through his blood," is 
of all hopes the most forlorn and hopeless. 
Again, the Savior said, '-Let the dead bury 
their dead ; and this, too, must mean what it 
says. A neighbor dies ; we would be glad to 
manifest our respect for him, by assisting at his 
interment; but this the Book has forbidden, 
and, consequently, his burial is consigned to 
those that had previously died. These are only 
a few of the dangers and absurdities, involved 

D 



38 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

in the application of this rule of interpreta-- 
tion. 

Perhaps Mr. Campbell may demur to this, 
and deny that he ever intended to convey the 
idea that the Word of God is always to be un- 
derstood, as literally meaning what it literally 
says. But that he originally gave it currency, 
and that his foUovirers received it as an axiom, 
and proclaimed it as the only safe rule for the 
interpretation of Scripture, might be easily 
proved. It is true, after having v^itnessed the 
farcical attitude in which the position, as car- 
ried out by his followers, was placing him, he 
attempted a partial retreat ; and hence, when 
hard pressed, his followers have learned to say, 
that ftiey only mean that the Scripture means 
what its meaning says ; i. e. in plain English, 
it m^eans what it does mean — a position which 
no man in his senses will question ; but in the 
nomenclature of this new gospel we must give 
it the following interpretation : The Scripture 
means what it says when it seems to favor 
Camphellism<i hut when its sayings do not ac- 
cord with this system^ it means what it does 
not say. And thus, when preaching baptism 
"for the remission of sins," they continue to 
plead for the literal application of the principle 
originally assumed — " the Scripture means 
what it says^ Nor is this pertinacious ad- 
herence at all surprising, for, to surrender this 
principle would lead to the abandonment of 
their favorite notions ; or, at least, it would 
leave the leading feature of their system with 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 89 

about as much evidence and probability for its 
support, as have the marvelous adventures of 
Baron Munchauson, 

We notice, in another point of light, the fol- 
ly, and, also, the danger of the doctrine before 
us. Upon the literal reading of some three or 
four isolated texts, and upon an arbitrary con- 
struction, and by an unnatural application of a 
few passages of Scripture, Mr. Campbell has 
founded a scheme for obtaining remission of 
sins, v^hich is directly opposed by more than 
one hundred texts and circumstances recorded 
in the Bible. This, to say the least of it, is a 
dangerous precedent, and calculated to counte- 
nance almost every absurdity that assumes the 
garb of Christianity. What visionary ^sectary 
might not on this ground, attempt to reform the 
church, and introduce his notions as *ttie " an- 
cient gospel ?" Such efforts have often been 
made. Look at the Socinian, th^ Shaker:, the 
Universalist^ the Mormonite, and the- crazy 
Live-for-ever I Each of these has found> few 
phrases, or sentences of Scripture, that seem 
to favor his notions ; and setting them up as 
the only standard of faith and practice, has 
made proselytes. Nay, more, the attempt to 
raise a sect, v/hose members should eat, and 
drink, and talk, and laugh, and scream, and 
cry like little children, met with some encour- 
agement ; and could plead in its behalf, the let- 
ter of Scripture, in the words of the Savior, 
with as much plausibility as this plea can be 
urged for water regeneration. 



40 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

On the same ground, we could easily multi- 
ply theories, and form systems, repugnant, alike, 
to the tenor of Scripture, and the opinions of 
Mr. Campbell. If half a dozen detached por- 
tions of the New Testament, justify his theory 
of baptistn as the condition of re7nission of 
sins, the same amount of testimony will au- 
thorize any other theory. And, hence, we 
might exclude repentance, baptism, and faith 
from the office of obtaining remission, because 
a few texts promise this blessing consequent 
upon prayer. Take the following : ^'^sk and 
ye shall receive ;" " How much more shall 
your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
them that ask him ;" " Whosoever shall call 
on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." 
Again, the. Publican prayed, and went down 
from the temple justified ; the thief upon the 
cross prayed, was forgiven, and taken the 
same day to paradise ; and Peter said to one 
whom he pronounced " in the gall of bitterness, 
and in the bond of iniquity," ''pray God, if 
perhaps the thought of thine heart may be for- 
given thee." These precepts and circumstanc- 
es, do certainly give as much countenance to 
that theory which should make prayer the 
means of justification, as can be prodiiced in 
favor of the water scheme. 

Another plausible system might be predicated 
upon confession. It is said, '* If we corf ess 
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness." — 1 John, i. 9. The apostle here prom- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 41 

ises both pardon and sanctification, upon the 
condition, that we " confess our sins;" and this 
is more than is anywhere said of baptism. 
With what seeming plausibility might some de- 
signing sophist seize upon this passage, and tell 
the people, that " the clergy of all denomina- 
tions, are blind leaders of the blind ; and that 
they are still in the fogs of mystic Babylon, 
' unjustified, unadopted, and lost to all christian 
life and enjoyment;' that neither prayer, nor 
songs, nor repentance, nor faith, nor baptism, 
is necessary ; that God only reqviires the sin- 
ner to confess his sins ; and having done this, 
he knows his sins are pardoned, because he 
knows the Word of God cannot fail." That 
this scheme would take with some, and that 
these assertions would gain converts, must be 
obvious to those who have marked the success 
of Campbellism, founded on similar principles, 
and sustained by similar arguments. '^■^ 

But though the doctrine in question, as well 
as the theories we have supposed, seems to be 
countenanced by a few texts of Scripturevthe 
Word of God is not inconsistent, the Bible does 
not contradict itself. In the plan of salvation, 
man's duties and his enjoyments are insepara- 
bly connected. Various duties, and " good 
works," are required of him; which in their 
performance, become means of grace ; and 
hence, God's blessing, and the promise of par- 
don, are in some sense connected with prayer, 
confession, baptism, and all other acts of obe- 
dience. But still, the Scriptures uniformly 

d2 



42 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

teach, that remission of sins, in the sense of 
accounting a sinner righteous before God, is 
not to be obtained by 'Svorks of righteousness," 
or by any thing else that he has done, or can 
do, as works; but that the grace of God is man- 
ifested in presenting this blessing, solely upon 
the condition of faith, ''It is of faith, that it 
might be by grace." 

We believe that the condition of justification, 
on the part of the sinner, is faith alone ; be- 
cause Jesus Christ and his apostles uniformly 
taught this doctrine'; and neither the Campbell- 
ite sneer, of ' faith-alone-men,'' ^ nor the charge 
of " inconsistency,'^^ from the same source, 
shall deter us from giving heed to their instruc- 
tions. In a late number of the Millennial Har- 
binger, those who preach with St. Paul, '' that 
a man is justified by ya^7/^,. without the deeds 
of the law," are charged by Mr. Campbell, and 
one ofjhis pets, with contradicting themselves, 
and riot believi)2g what they preach. And 
why ? Because they believe that repentance 
must accompany ya//A. But is there any in- 
consistency in this ? - If so, what an inconsis- 
tent man is Mr. Alexander Campbell, who has 
published to the world that "immersion alone 
is the act of turning to God ;" and yet declares 
th'di faith and reformation must precede that 
act. Verily, ''those that live in glass houses 
should not throw stones." 

When the Philippian jailor inquired, "What 
must I do to be saved ?" the apostle answered, 
^''Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 43 

shalt be saved, and thy house.'' When Peter 
preached to Cornelius, and them that were with 
him, lie declared, that to Jesus Christ ''gave 
all the prophets witness, that through his name 
whosoever believeth in him shall receive re- 
mission of sins ;" and afterwards, when speak- 
ing of this visit to the Gentiles, and pleading 
their cause before the church at Jerusalem, he 
said, that God had received them upon the 
same condition he had received the Jews, ''pu- 
rifying their hearts by faith, '^^ In these texts, 
salvation, remission of sins, and purification 
of heart, are offered upon the condition of be- 
lief and declared to be " hy faith, '^'^ and they, 
if the Scriptures said nothing more on the sub- 
ject, would serve as a set-off against the plan 
of Mr. Campbell, and afford some countenance 
to the opinion, that " faith alone" is the (condition 
of salvation from sin. But the terms of pardon 
are too important to guilty man, to be involved 
in any uncertainty; and hence, they are so clear- 
ly stated, and so frequently repeated in ihe 
New Testament, as to exclude all possibility 
of doubt. Pardon of sin, is therein positively 
declared to be " by faith," "through faith, ':*^ 
and " of faith ;" and salvation from sin, in its 
various acceptations, is, in more than three 
hundred passages, represented as depending 
upon the condition of faith, without any allu- 
sion to baptism, or to any other act of obedi- 
ence. From which it is clear, ihB.t faith, and 
not works of any kind or quality, is taught by 
our Lord and his apostles, as the condition of 



44 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

justification, or remission of sins ; and hence, 
the scheme which makes baptism that condi- 
tion, or any part of it, did not originate from 
the Bible. 

God's plan of justifying the ungodly, as re- 
vealed in his Word, we believe to be through 
faith alone, and feel confident of our ability to 
prove this to the satisfaction of the intelligent, 
unprejudiced reader; but before we proceed 
further, it may be proper to notice an attempted 
evasion. It is said that baptism cannot inval- 
idate faith ^ and, therefore, that the addition 
of baptism to faith as a prerequisite for for- 
giveness, can do no harm, though that prere- 
quisite were faith alone. The fact that Mr. 
Campbell has given this position currency, 
through the " Millennial Harbinger," seems to 
render sQine notice of it necessary, though its 
absurdity .^mu St be obvious to the reader. That 
the reward may be "reckoned of grace,^' and 
not " of debt," God has promised i^mission of 
sins *' to him that worketh not, hntibelievethf^ 
but man, considering the arrangement of Jeho- 
vah defective, attempts to improve the plan by 
adding works to faith, and tells the world, that 
'* it is not faith, but going down into the wa- ' 
ter, that obtains remission of sins ;" and then 
consoles himself by the reflection, that if the 
condition should prove to be faith alone, the 
addition of baptism must be harmless, inasmuch 
2.^ faith is retained as a part of the condition. 
But the most ordinary reader will see the dan- 
ger of making that a part only, which God had 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 45 

made the wholes and, also, that the uniting of 
works with faith as the condition of pardon, en- 
tirely changes the ground of the sinner's ac- 
ceptance with God. St. Paul argued that the 
pardon of sin upon the condition of faith alone, 
tended to magnify the grace of God, and to ex- 
clude boasting from the creature ; but if bap- 
tism is that which obtains the blessing, it is no 
longer of grace, but of debt, and the creature 
has whereof to boast, and may say, '' Come 
hither all ye that fear the Lord, and I will tell 
you what I have done for my soul. I have been 
down into the water — I have washed away my 
sins — I am happy, because I have done all 
this." It is thus seen, that Mr. Campbeirg 
scheme neutralizes the grace of God in the par- 
don of sin, if it does not entirely exclude it, 
and offers remission upon principles contra- 
ry to the teachings of the New Testament. 
But further, this scheme, while it talks much 
about faith, comes short of the faith required in 
the gospel. And as this is a source of error, 
and of manifest danger to those who embrace 
the system, before we proceed to*p.rove that 
justification is by faith, we shall endeavor to '^^ 
£iscertain the nature of that faith, which the 
Scriptures connect with justification. 

Mr. Campbell, we believe, admits of no high- 
er degree of faith, than the assent of the mind, 
produced by the force of evidence. The ground 
assumed by his followers, is, '* that man is not 
so depraved as to require any divine agency to 
induce, or to enable him to believe the gospel ; 



46 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

\h2X faith and belief, strictly speaking, mean 
the same thing, and are entirely predicated upon 
evidence ; and that the faith required in order 
to salvation is only a full persuasion of the 
truth of the gospel facts." From which it is 
clear, that a Campbellite's faith is only historic, 
and nothing more than the assent of the mind 
to the truth of any fact, sustained by credible 
testimony. This view of faith is what we had 
allusion to in a former number, when we said, 
that Mr. Campbell rejects that faith which the 
Scriptures require. And we are still of the 
same opinion ; for though the Scriptures do re- 
quire a belief of the facts therein contained, 
this is not all they require, nor is this all that 
faith in its fullest sense implies. 

Faith, is presented in Scripture under two 
leading views. The first embraces the assent 
of the niind; the second, the confidence, reli- 
ance, and trust, of the will and the affections. 
Tlie former may exist without t^e latter (and 
here is where Campbellites make ship wreck'of 
their faith,) but the latter cannot exist without 
the former. That all faith is not the sam.e, is 
clearly taught in the Scriptures. The Savior 
comm.ends the greatness of the- faitli "of sorne^ 
while he condemns the *' little faith" of others. 
A dead, inoperative faith is mentioned by St. 
James ; and faith in the sense of intellectual as- 
sent to truth, is allowed to be possessed even by 
devils. But neither this V little faith," nor this 
'*dead faith," can be what the Scriptures require 
in order to salvation ; for those who possess it are 



J 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. IT 

condemned. It is, therefore, certain, that the 
faith of the christian includes more than a be- 
lief of the general truths of revelation. It 
combines with the belief of those truths, a con- 
Jidence in, and a reliance upon the merits of 
Christ alone. In other words, it unites assent 
with reliance, belief with trust. Of Christ it 
was said, " in his name shall the Gentiles 
trust, ^"^ He is proclaimed as the only true 
sacrifice for sin, and both Jews and Gentiles are 
required to renounce their own righteousness, 
and confide solely in his death and mediation. 
He is set forth as a propitiation, " through faith 
in his blood ;" which faith can neither mean 
mere assent to the historical fact that his blood 
was shed upon Calvary ; nor a mere belief of 
the doctrine that his blood has an atoning vir- 
tue ; but as he has made "a sin o|fering for 
us," "faith in his blood," implies ^confident 
relianc6 on.Jiim for pardon, A furtKeV illustra- 
tion of this view of faith is seen in the address 
of our Lord to his disciples upon the withering 
away of the fig tree. "Have faith in God ; 
for yerily I say unto you, that whosoever shall 
say unto this mountain. Be thou removed, and 
be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt 
in his heart, but shall believe [trust] that these 
things which he saith shall come to pass, he 
shall have whatsoever he saith." Now, when 
he exhorted his disciples to " have faith in 
God," he certainly did not mean to question 
their belief of the existence of God. Thus 
faith in this sense was not doubted. But he 



48 CAMPBELMSM EXPOSED. 

exhorted them to exercise a higher degree of 
faith, i. e., a confidence, or trust in the prom- 
ises of God, when called by him to contend 
with mountainous difficulties. Under the idea 
of confidence^ St. Paul, also, refers to faith, 
when he says, Heh, x. 35 : "Cast not away, 
therefore, your confidence^ which hath great 
recomjffense of reward;" for he adds in the 
38th verse, '* Now the just shall live hy faith; 
but if any man draw back, my soul shall have 
no pleasure in him." Here it is obvious, that 
the apostle contrasts, living by faith, with 
drawing back and casting confidence away ; 
and hence, confidence and faith, are used as 
synonymous terms. 

It is thus clearly seen, that that faith which 
,^the Scriptures make the condition of justifica- 
^^tion, combines with the belief of truth,' a trust 
in, a reliance upon, and a confident taking hold 
of the merits of Christ's death as a sacrifice for 
our sins. Did faith in the former sense, neces- 
sarily include the latter, the Campbellite notioif-- 
concerning faith, would be harmless. But this 
it does not. The former may exist, without 
one particle of the latter. Twenty-fire years 
ago, I believed that there was such a man as 
Napoleon Bonaparte, whose arms seemed in- 
vincible, and who bid fair to overturn the dy- 
nasties of Europe; but I did not admire his 
character, had no confidence in his pretensions, 
gind never desired to trust him for any thing, 
rhis may illustrate the point before us : Wick- 
ed men read the Bible, and hear it expounded, 



[ 
^ 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 49 

till they become convinced of its truth, give the 
full assent of their minds to the facts it devel- 
ops, and have all the faith that a Campbellite 
requires ; but their hearts being at enmity with 
God, ih&f do not confide or trust in the gift of 
his Son, for salvation ; and hence, they remain 
unrenewed in their spirit and conduct. 

The most unlettered christian will see the 
difference between the faith of assent, and that 
of reliance, or trust, and that true and saving 
faith must include both. Indeed, to confide or 
trust in Christ, constitutes the principal essence 
of faith, and is the condition of justification. 
*' But," to use the words of Watson, " this is 
not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacri- 
fice of Christ, like that of the heathen in their 
sacrifices ; nor the presumptuous trust of wick- 
ed and impenitent men, who depend on Christ 
to save them in their sins ; but such a trust as 
is exercised according to the authority and di- 
rection of the Word of God ; so that to know 
the gospel in its leading principles, and to have 
a cordial belief in it, is necessary to that more 
specific act of faith which is called reliance, 
or in systematic language, Jiducial assent. '^'^ 
" With the heart manbelieveth unto righteous- 
ness." 

Having defined and illustrated the nature of 
that faith, which the Scriptures connect with 
salvation, and found it to combine reliance and 
trust, with assent, we proceed to show that this 
is that qualifying condition to which the prom- 
ise of God annexes justification. 
8 E 



60 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

It will not be necessary to prove, that justi- 
fication, pardon and remission of sins, forgive- 
ness of sins, the non-imputation of sin, and the 
imputation of righteousness, are different New 
Testament terms and phrases of the same im- 
port. Believing that our opponents will con- 
cede this, we shall only adduce one quotation. 
St. Paul clearly uses justification and forgive- 
ness as synonymous terms, when he says, " Be 
it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, 
that through this Man is preached unto you the 
forgiveness of sins : and by him all that be- 
lieve are justified from all things, from which 
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 
— Acts, xiii. 38, 39. In this passage, to be 
forgiven, and to be justified, are represented as 
the same state, and as implying the same act 
of divine mercy by which sin is remitted, and 
the sinner accounted righteous before God. 
Keeping this in mind, the reader will be ^^e- 
pared to attend us, while we demonstrate mat 
faith, and not baptism, is the condition upon 
which the Scriptures offer the pardon of sin. 

'That justification by faith alone was the 
grand doctrine of the Reformation^ brought 
forth from the Scriptures by Luther, Melanc- 
thon, and others, and by them successfully 
urged against the corruptions of the church of 
Rome, will not be questioned. And that this 
doctrine has been a leading feature in the cre«ds 
of most of the reformed churches, Arminian 
as well as Calvinistic, from that time to the pres- 
ent, is also undeniable. It is not pretended 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 51 

that these facts prove the truth of this doctrine, 
but they certainly have an important bearing, 
and are entitled to some deference. That chris- 
tians of different parties and opinions, under the 
influence of conflicting interests, and, too fre- 
quently, divided by sectarian prejudices, should, 
for several hundred years, unite in receiving 
and defending justification by faith alone, is 
strong presumptive evidence of its truth. We 
cannot easily account for the unanimity of sen- 
timent upon this point, among Protestant chris- 
tian, s but upon the ground that the doctrine is 
taught in the Scriptures. And certainly the at- 
tempt to condemn the Protestant christian world, 
and to overturn the principles of the Reforma- 
tion from Popery, by the introduction of works, 
as the condition of justification, comes in ''a 
questionable shape," from a Protestant Refor- 
mer. 

3ut we neither rely upon the above facts, nor 
upon any other human authority to prove the 
point in issue. The Word of God is our only 
dependence. To the Scriptures we turn ; and 
if justificatiort 'by faith, without v/orks, be not 
therein taught and defended, we shall abandon 
it, and take shelter with the Campbellites, or 
the Catholics. But if there be any thing clear- 
ly taught by our Lord and his aposdes, it is the 
doctrine for which we contend. In the above 
quotation from Acts xiii. St. Paul declares "all 
that believe are justified." This language is 
pointed and clear, and as obviously opposed to 
the doctrine of Mr. Campbell, as day to night. 



53 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

According to his teachings, men must believe 
before they are baptized, but their belief does 
not justify, nor can they be pardoned until they 
go down into the water ; but the apostle teaches 
a different doctrine, and without any allusion to 
baptism, plainly declares, that «* all that believe 
are justified." 

The Saviour in person, on various occasions, 
inculcated this important truth. In his conver- 
sation with Nicodemus he uses the following 
language : '* As Moses lifted up the serpent in 
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have eternal life." 
Though pardon of sin is not here mentioned, 
it is evidently implied; for " eternal life" can 
only be enjoyed by them whose sins are for- 
gjven. But eternal life is promised in this text 
to those that believe; therefore, the Saviour 
clearly teaches remission and salvation, upon 
the condition of faith alone. That this is the 
doctrine of the text, will be obvious to those 
who consider the circumstance adverted to by 
way of illustration. When the Israelitish cam 
in the wilderness was infested by poisonous 
serpents, Moses lifted up the brazen serpent, 
as an antidote to the poison. But they that 
were bitten, were not required to touch the 
brazen serpent, nor to look upon it, and then to 
plunge themselves in the water, as the condition 
of their restoration. They were only required 
to look, Ajid although the poison was rapidly 
approaching the citadel of life, and its victim 




CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED* 53 

was at the point of death, so soon as he opened 
his eyes and looked upon the brazen serpent he 
was healed. Now this look by the natural 
eye, upon the serpent that Moses lifted up, for- 
cibly illustrates that look by the eye of faith, 
upon a crucified Savior, which is required of 
the sinner. And as in the former case, life 
was promised, solely, upon the condition that 
they should look upon the serpent of brass, so, 
also, in the latter, remission of sins and eternal 
life, are offered upon the condition of faith 
alone. 

That this is the doctrine taught by the ex- 
press letter of Scripture, no one can deny ; and 
so numerous are the passages that bear upon 
this point, that to give them to the reader, 
would subject us to the necessity of transcrib- 
ing a considerable part of the New Testament. 
Take the following: '' Abraham 6 e/zevec? Go^d 
and it was counted unto him for righteousness." 
'^Rom, iv. 3. '' To him that worketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungod- 
ly, his faith is counted for righteousness" — 
verse 5. '' We say that faith was reckoned to 
him for righteousness" — verse 9^ " Now it 
was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
imputed to him ; but for us to whom it shall be 
imputed, if we believe in him who raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead" — verse 23, 24. 
Ilk these quotations, taken promiscuously from 
one chapter, faith is seven times declared to be 
the condition upon which man receives re- 
mission of sins and is accounted righteous. 
e2 



54 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

In these texts it should be noted, that ''faiM^ 
is plainly said to be *' imputed for righteous- 
ness ;" an expression which is no where used 
of baptism, or of any other kind of works ; 
and in this we see the excellency of faith, and 
the propriety of making it the condition of par- j 
don. 

The tenor of Scripture, where justification 
is the theme, accords with the above passages. 
Faith is frequently said to be accounted to the j 
sinner for righteousness, and his justification 
is often declared to be " by faith," " through i 
faith," and " of faith." Now if baptism occu- ! 
pied the place of faith in these expressions, or 
was connected with it, there would be no 'diffi- 
culty in making it the condition of remission 
of sins. But the case is different ; there is no 
allusion to baptism, or to any other work, ei- 
ther moral, ceremonial, or evangelical ; and the i 
only satisfactory reason that can be given for I 
the apostle's failure to connect baptism wiQi 
faith as the condition of pardon, is, that it was-^i 
not designed to form any part of that condition. I 

Justification by faith, is so frequently and ' 
positively taught in the unequivocal language 
of the New Testament, that Mr. Campbell, and . 
his adherents, have found it necessary to evade 
the force of that language, by departing from 
what the apostles say, and supplying what they 
suppose them to mean $ and hence, we are told 
that " being justified by faith," means, '^ fyan J 
act of faith, or a believing immersion ^n the f 
Lord Jesus Christ." To say nfhin^ of the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 55 

inconsistency of this gloss as coming from 
those who profess to bow to the authority of 
Scripture, and to believe that it means what it 
says, its entire lack of evidence, and its palpa- 
ble absurdity, furnish its own refutation. 

That the' New Testament writers, by the 
word '' faith," mean faith, and not works, is 
obvious : 1. From the plain distinction which 
they draw between them, when they tell us, 
that "faith works by love," "is shown forth 
by our works," and exhort us "to add to our 
faith, virtue ; to virtue, knowledge ; and, 2. 
Because it is unreasonable to suppose that 
Christ and his apostles would use a word which 
had a known and fixed import, and mean by 
this word a thing directly the reverse of itself, 
which they must have done if they intended to 
include baptism in the term faith. When the 
apostles preached justification by faith, we can- 
not by any reasonable construction, understand 
th6m to mean any thing more than belief and 
trust ; and hence faith is clearly set forth as the 
sole condition of remission of sins. 

But let us examine this Campbellite gloss a 
little further. It tells us, that the apostles, by 
faith, intend a " believing immersion," an act 
springing from faith. If so, it will do no vio- 
lence to the Scriptures to omit the word " faith," 
and to supply its place by that which it is said 
to mean. Then let us try a few texts. Our 
Lord says, " O woman, great is thy faith" (great 
is thy believing immersion,) St. Paul says, 
" With the heart man believeth unto righteous- 



66 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

ness" (with the heart man is immersed unto 

righteousness.) Again, " By grace are ye saved 

through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is 

the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man 

should boast" (by grace are ye saved through 

a believing imm,ersion in the Lord Jesus Christ $ 

and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 

not of works, lest any man should boast.) In 

this last quoted text, the apostle tells us that 

salvation is the gift of God, through faith, and 

.that works, as a condition, are excluded, so that 

boasting might be excluded from the sinner ; 

but Campbell's interpretation declares that we 

are saved by works, for baptism is works in 

the proper sense of that word, and it cannot be 

any thing but works. Hence, the apostle is 

made to say in the same sentence, that we are 

saved by works, and that we are not saved by 

works. It is thus shown, that man, to support 

an unscriptural system, would make an inspired 

apostle contradict himself, and convert the plain 

truths and sober reasonings of the Word of God, 

into absurdity and nonsense. ^ 

The foregoing remarks were offered to show 
the absurdity of the idea that faith, when con- 
nected with remission of &ins in the New Tes- 
tament, includes baptism, or other works of 
obedience. This point claims a few additional 
remarks. 

In every discourse of St. Paul, when treating 
on the method of justification, faith and works 
so far from being united, are plainly opposed 
to each other. In the 3d and 4th chapters of 



OAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 57 

^ Romans, he treats on this subject professedly, 
states it clearly, reasons cogently, and con- 
cludes emphatically, " That a man is justified 
by faith, without the deeds of the law." Now 
Campbellites tell us that " the law" here means 
the Jewish ritual, and we admit that the apos- 
tle does exclude this law from the office of jus- 
tifying ; but he certainly, in the above expres- 
sion, had some other law in view. He proceeds 
directly to ask the following question : " Do 
we make void the law through faith ? ' God 
forbid; yea, we establish the law." All will 
admit that the apostle does, " through faith," 
*'make void" the ceremonial law. But he is 
now speaking of a law which he does not make 
void, of course this cannot be the rites of the 
Mosaic economy. The conclusion is, there- 
fore, unavoidable, that that law which faith does 
not make void, is the law of moral and evan- 
gelical works ; and as St. Paul argues that a 
man is justified without the deeds of this law, 
it follows that works do n6t enter into the con- 
dition of justification. 

Indeed, the apostle's argument necessarily 
iBXcludes from the office of justifying, works 

'^of evangelical obedience, as well as works of 
the ceremonial law. The scope of his reason- 
ing is against works, not for their kind or qual- 
ity, or the dispensation under which they ori- 
ginated, but on account of their nature as works. 
He is laboring to extol the grace and goodness 
of God, by showing that the pardon of our sins 
is not obtained by our acts of obedience to law, 
3* 



58 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

but that it is of his unmerited favor. Hence 
he says, "Now to him that worketh, is the 
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But 
to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him 
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness. Even as David also descri- 
beth the blessedness of the man unto whom 
the Lordimputeth righteousness without works, 
saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are 
forgiven, and whose sins are covered" — Rom. 
iv. 4 — 7. Now we cannot suppose the apos- 
tle here, by " him that worketh," to mean the 
Jew only, seeking justification by the deeds of 
the ceremonial law, because, 1. He speaks of 
" liTorks," without any restricting adjunct or 
inference ; and if rites and ceremonies under 
the Jewish economy are tvorks, rites and cer- 
emonies under the christian economy are also 
works ^ and 2. This supposition would destroy 
his argument ; for, coming down to the' 16th 
verse, he says, " Therefore it is oi faith that 
it might be by grace.^^ The argument amount^?? 
to this : Pardon of sin is of the grace of God 
alone, but a condition is required of the sinner : 
if that condition were icorks of obediei;ce to 
any law, the " reward would be reckone'cl of 
debt," for having performed the work he might 
claim the reward as his right, as having earned 
it ; and hence, that the cinner might have noth- 
ing *' whereof to glory" in himself, but be con- 
strained to '* glory in the Lord," his sins are 
remitted upon the condition of faith *' without 
works." 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 59 

If this is not a necessary inference from St. 
Paul's reasonings, and if he did not mean, there- 
by, to reject baptism and all other works, as the 
means of obtaining pardon, and place our jus- 
tification upon the condition of faith alone, it 
will be difficult to show that he came to any 
conclusion. 

We now proceed to the consideration of our 
main argument in defence of justification by 
faith. That facts are stubborn arguments, 
though a trite saying, is unquestionably true. 
We give the fact of Abraham's justification in 
proof of the doctrine for which we contend, 
and do not fear to risk the issue upon his case 
alone. It is true we are under no necessity to 
do this ; for independent of his case, the doc- 
trine stands as conspicuous in the Scriptures, 
as the unclouded sun in the firmament of heav- 
en, but the manner of his justification is so di- 
rectly in point, that those who will not be, there- 
by, convinced of the fallacy of trusting in bap- 
tism, would scarcely be convinced " though one 
rose from the dead" for their benefit. 

In presenting the case of Abraham, we shall 
prove, 1 . That his justification is the pattern of 
the justification of sinful men in all ages ; and, 
2. That he was justified by faith alone. If we 
succeed in establishing these points, our " nega- 
tive" will be sustained, and baptism, as the 
means of obtaining remission of sins, will be 
proved to be an unscriptural assumption. 

1. That the mode in which Abraham was 
justified, points out the^ method which God has 



60 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

revealed for the forgiveness of sin, is clearly set 
forth in two of St. Paul's epistles. In that to 
the Galatians we have the following language : 
*' Know ye therefore, that they which are of 
faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 
And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would 
justify the heathen through faith, preached be- 
fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee 
shall all nations be blessed. So then they 
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abra- 
ham. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to promise." 
Here christians are said to be " blessed with 
faithful Abraham," and to be his *' seed" and 
his " children ;" from which it is clear that they 
become " heirs" by walking in his footsteps. 

But this point is settled beyond controversy 
in the 4th chapter of Romans, which the rea- 
der is requested to examine for himself. It will 
be seen that the apostle in this part of the epis- 
tle, is laboring to show God's method of justi- 
fying the ungodly ; and for this purpose he re- 
fers to the case of Abraham by way of proof 
and illustration. But this case would be entire- 
ly irrelevant, and prove nothing, unless Abra- 
ham's justification be a pattern of the justifi- 
cation of his children. And further, the apos- 
tle here says, that Abraham " received the sign 
of circumcision ; a se^l of the righteousness of 
the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcis- 
ed : that he might be the father of all them that 
believe — who also walked in the steps of that 
faith of our father Abraham.'^ Rom, iv. II, 



CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 61 

12. In this passage Abraham is declared to be 
"the father of all that believe," and they are 
said to walk in the steps of his faith. From 
which it follows that the manner in which he 
was justified, is the manner in which all his 
children are justified. If he were justified by 
faith and works, so are they ; but if the condi- 
tion of his justification was *' faith without 
works," then the condition of their justification 
is the same. 

2. It only remains for us to ascertain hoW 
Abraham was justified, and then the question 
will be settled. On this, as on all other points, 
we appeal " to the law and testimony," to the 
teachings of the Scriptures, and the recorded 
facts of the case, which, in the present instance, 
we believe to be so clear and decisive as to bid 
defiance, alike, to sophistry and scepticism. — 
The following Scriptures are in point : '' If Abra- 
ham were justified by works, he hath whereof 
to glory ; but not before God. ¥ov what saith 
the Scriptures ? Abraham believed God and it 
[his faith] was counted unto him for righteous- 
ness"— Rom. iv, 2, 3. " We say that faith 
Was Reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 
How was it then reckoned, when he was in 
circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in 
circumcision, but in uncircumcision" — (verse 
9, 10). ''Even as Abraham believed God, 
and it was accounted to him for righteousness" 
— Gal. iii, 6. In making these assertions St. 
Paul had the authority of Moses, who, in giv- 
ing an account of this transaction, adds, ** and 

F 



62 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to 
him for righteousness" — Gen. xv, 6. The 
quotations might be multiplied, but these are 
decisive. To add more would seem like trifling 
with the reader. 

Now, though the Scriptures cannot be always 
understood according to their literal reading, 
yet they are generally to be received in this 
sense ; nor can we with safety depart from it, 
unless the context presents the language as 
figurative and metaphorical, or a different con- 
struction be required in order that the passage 
myy harmonize with the general voice, and ob- 
vious import of Scripture. But certainly there 
is nothing in Abraham's case or in the above 
quotations, to justify the idea that the language 
is used figuratively or metonymically ; nor does 
the harmony of Scripture require that we should 
understand the term " faith" in these passages, 
otherwise than in its proper and literal sense. 
On the contrary, to understand it in any other 
sense, would imply a manifest contradiction in 
the Scriptures, and involve Christianity in diffi- 
culties from which the most subtil ingenuity 
could not extricate it. But these Scriptures 
declare explicitly, that Abraham's faith *' was 
counted," " imputed" and " reckoned to him 
for righteousness," and that he was justified by 
faith " without works." It is therefore cer- 
tain, that faith was the sole condition of his 
pardon. 

This conclusion is confirmed and its coiTect- 
ness established by the circumstances connected 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 63 

with his justification, to which we now appeal. 
Moses in the 15th chapter of Genesis, informs 
us, that Abraham was justified when he believed 
the promise of God, that he should have a son 
in his old age ; St. Paul refers to the same fact, 
and in the following quotation, testifies to its 
truth. Abraham " against hope believed in 
hope, that he might become the father of many 
nations ; according to that which was spoken, 
' So shall thy seed be.' And being not weak 
in faith, he considered not his own body now 
dead, when he was about an hundred years old, 
neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb : he 
staggered not at the promise of God through 
unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory 
to God ; and being fully persuaded, that SBtiat 
he had promised, he was able also to perfofci. 
And therefore it was imputed to him for riglit- 
eoushess" — Rom, iv. 18-22. If then the testi- 
mony of two inspired writers is to be credited, 
it is clear, that Abraham was justified before 
Isaac was born, and at the time he believed the 
promise of God relative to his birth. And this 
circ4imstance entirely excludes the notion that 
any act of obedience in the shape of works, 
was connected with his justification. No such 
act was required ; neither oflfering, nor ceremo- 
ny, was at that time demanded. God had pro- 
mised him a son in his old age ; the probabili- 
ties of nature were entirely against the fulfill- 
ment of the promise, but considering the abili- 
ty and fidelity of Him who had promised, he 
believed^ trusted and confided in his word ; and 



64 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

by this act of faith, which at the time was unac- 
companied by works of any kind or quality, 
he was justified. 

V\^e repeat, that the circumstances of the case 
utterly forbid the idea that works of obedience 
had any thing to do with Abraham's justification. 
** It was of faith, that it might be by grace." 
God demanded no works at his hands, either 
as a part or the whole of the condition of par- 
don, and, consequently, his performances, 
whatever they might have been, could not have 
been acts of obedience. But, indeed, he at- 
tempted nothing of the kind ; or if he did, the 
Scriptures tell us nothing about it. But if our 
opponents still insist, that some act of obedi- 
ence must have accompanied his faith or he 
could not have been justified, we inquire, what 
was that act ? Not baptism, for it at that time 
had no existence as a religious ordinance ; not 
circumcision, for Abraham was not circumcised 
till several years after his justification, nor was 
it the offering of Isaac, for he was not then 
born. But the inquiry is vain, and the search 
fruitless. The Scriptures give no information 
of any act of obedience in Abraham's case, 
when he believed God concerning the promised 
seed, and was justified; the circumstances, as 
recorded, entirely exclude the idea of works, 
and the Scriptures declare that he was justified 
** by faith, without works." 

From all which we consider our points as 
proved, our negative sustained, and justification 
by faith alone, unquestionably established. And 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 65 

planting ourself on these facts and arguments, 
clad with the panoply of gospel truth, we shall 
neither regard the puny missiles of sneers and 
sarcasms, nor fear the arguments of more sen- 
sible and manly opponents. 

We have now presented the substance of what 
we designed in proof of justification by faith. 
Much more might be adduced, but it is not 
considered necessary. The case of Abraham 
is decisive. It will scarcely be questioned, that 
' his justification is given by the apostle as the 
pattern of the justification of sinners in all 
ages ; of course our pardon is obtained on the 
same qualifying principle that his was. If this 
is not St. Paul's meaning, he means nothing, 
and proves nothing, by his reference to the 
patriarch. But the Scriptures clearly^acli that 
" faith without works, was accounted to him 
for righteousness," and the circumstances and 
time of his justification render it morally im- 
possible for works of obedience to have formed 
any part of the condition of his pardon. It is 
therefore certain, that all who " walk in the 
steps of the faith of Abraham," and become 
his children, receive remission of sins as he 
did, by faith alone ; that man is not, and never 
- \vas in any age, justified in the sense of being 
pardoned and accounted righteous, by works of 
any kind, whether moral, ceremonial, or evan- 
gelical ; and that baptism as the means of par- 
don, is man's invention, unauthorized and un- 
sanctioned by the Oracles of truth. 

We proceed now to notice some objectiona 
f3 



66 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

against the doctrine of faith, as the condition of 
justification. The positions we have established 
in the case of Abraham, and the doctrine dedu- 
ced therefrom, are objected to, 

I. Because St. James tells us, that Abraham 
was "justified by w^orks when he offered Isaac 
his son upon the altar." 

On this subject we have witnessed the dis- 
play of much zeal in the pulpit, and heard 
many '' great swelling words" from the teachers 
of Campbellism, in laboring to reconcile St. 
Paul's account of Abraham's justification to the 
incidental remark of St. James. And believ- 
ing them sincere, we have often lamented the 
ignorance they manifested on this important 
subject. Taking it for granted, that justi/ica- 
tion is always to be understood in the same 
sense, they conclude the two apostles to treat 
of the same thing ; but a better knowledge of 
the Bible would show them the propriety of 
using the term under four different views, and 
they would at once discover that these apos- 
tles do not speak of justification in the same 
sense. '^ # 

In meeting the above objection, we §hail 
avail ourself, in part, of the arguments of ^'Mr. 
Watson in his " Institutes," using our own 
language, or abbreviating his, as may seem ex- 
pedient ; and unless we are much too sanguine, 
it will be made to appear, that Campbellites, 
on this subject, have as greatly mistaken St, 
James as they have mistaken St. Paul. Let it 
be remembered, that they, supposing the two 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 67 

apostles to speak of justification in the same 
sense, and that St. James tells the whole truth, 
and St. Paul only a part, endeavor to reconcile 
the latter to the former. 

We observe then, 1. That the attempt to in- 
terpret St. Paul by St. James involves a mani- 
fest absurdity. The former treats professedly , 
and in a set discourse, on the subject in ques- 
tion, the justification of sinful man before God ; 
but the latter, if he could be allowed to treat on 
that subject with the same design, does it but 
incidentally. The former enters into the sub- 
ject by copious argument, the latter barely 
touches it, and passes on. From which it is 
evident, that the whole truth must first be 
sought for, and can only be expected, in the 
writer who enters profes?sedly and fully into 
the inquiry. The absurdity of a contrary 
course, will be obvious to every reader. 

But, 2. The two apostles do not engage in 
the same argument, because they are not ad- 
dressing themselves to persons in the same cir- 
cumstances. St. Paul, addressing the unbe- 
lieving Jews, who sought justification by 
obedience to the moral and ceremonial law, 
proves, that neither Jew nor Gentile can be 
justified by works of obedience to any law, and 
that therefore justification, in the sense of par- 
don, must be by faith alone. But St. James, 
addressing such as professed Christianity, but 
had imbibed dangerous views of the nature of 
faith, supposing that faith, in the sense of opin- 
ion or mere belief of doctrine, would save them, 



68 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

while they remained destitute of a real change 
of heart, and holiness of life, pleads for the re- 
novation of man's nature, and evangelical obe- 
dience, as the necessary fruits of real or living 
faith. St. Paul proves, that works, in whole 
or in part, would noi justify ; St. James proves, 
that a dead faith, the mere faith of assent, 
would not save, 

3. St. Paul and St. James do not use the 
term justification in the same sense.' It was 
shown in a former number, that St. Paul uses 
it to express the pardon of sin. But, that St. 
James does not speak of this kind of justifica- 
tion is evident from his reference to the case 
of Abraham, in which we are told that the jus- 
tification of which he speaks took place at the 
time that Isaac was offered upon the altar. He 
cannot mean that Abraham was then justified 
in the sense of being pardoned, for St. Paul, 
on the authority of Moses, fixes that event 
many years previously, even before Isaac was 
born, at the time that he believed God relative 
to the promised seed, and his faith was impu- 
ted for riofhteousness. It is obvious then, that 
the justification of Abraham, mentioned by St. 
James, does not mean the forgiveness of his 
sins, and that he uses the term in a different 
sense to St. Paul. And yet, Campbellites will 
understand them as using the term in the same 
sense, and therefore assert that Abraham was 
not forgiven until he had offered his son upon 
the altar ; by which, instead of reconciling the 
two apostles, they plainly declare that the as- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 69 

sertions of Moses and St. Paul are not true. — 
Verily, this is reformation with a vengeance ! 
4. The only sense in which St. James can 
take the term justification, when he says that 
Abraham was '^justified by works, when he 
had offered Isaac," is, that his works manifest- 
ed or proved that he was justified, proved that 
he was really justified by faith, or, in other 
words, that the faith by which he was justified 
was not dead and inoperative, but living and 
active. If this is not his meaning — if he in- 
tends to say that Abraham was then justified 
in the sense of being pardoned, he directly 
contradicts St. Paul, who places that event 
twenty-five years before the offering of Isaac. 
But, so far is St. James from contradicting St. 
Paul's account of the time and manner of Abra- 
ham's justification, that he clearly admits and 
confirms it, by quoting the passage from Gen- 
esis, in which this is said to have taken place 
years before ; and he makes use of his works 
when he obeyed God in offering his son upon 
the altar, to prove that the faith, by which he 
was originally justified, was not dead, but liv- 
ing and obedient. '* Seest thou how faith 
wrought with his works, and by works was 
his faith made perfect, and the Scripture was 
fulfilled^ which saith, * Abraham believed God' 
(in a transaction twenty -five years previous), 
* and it was imputed to him for righteousness,' 
and he was called the friend of God" — .Tames 
ii, 22, 23. Observe here, that St. James 
quotes the same passage, Gen. xv, 6, which St. 



70 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

Paul had quoted, and adds, '* and the Scripture 
was fulfilled." — The Scripture heire said to be 
fuljilled/\s the above passage from Genesis, 
quoted by St. Paul, to prove that Abraham 
was justified, alone, by the imputation of faith 
for righteousness. And this Scripture, says 
St. James, " was fulfilled," when Isaac was 
offered upon the altar. But how was it fulfill- 
ed ? Not in the sense of being accomplished, 
for the passage is neither typical nor prophetic, 
but the simple narrative of a fact which trans- 
pired twenty-five years before the fulfillment 
spoken of. The only sense then in which the 
term " fulfill" can be taken in this passage, is, 
that of illustration and establishment, — When 
Abraham obeyed God by offering his son upon 
the altar, he illustrated and confirmed the truth 
of the Scripture which declared him to have 
been justified by faith many years prior to this 
act of obedience, and proved that the faith by 
which he was pardoned was living and opera- 
tive. It is thus clearly seen, that St. James 
confirms St. Paul's position, that Abraham was 
pardoned by faith " without works," and that 
the justification which he mentions, is not the 
pardon of sin, but the manifestation or proof 
of being in a justified state. 

5. And as St. James does not use the term 
justification to express the forgiveness of sin, 
when he speaks of the justification of Abraham 
by works, it follows, that he cannot use it in 
this sense in the general conclusion : *' ye see, 
then, how that by works a man is justified, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 71r 

and. not by faith only." The ground on which 
he rests this general inference is the declara- 
tive justification of Abraham, which resulted 
from his act of obedience in the case of Isaac ; 
the justification of which he speaks in the con- 
clusion of the argument, must, therefore, be 
taken in the same sense. He is not speaking 
of the act of being justified, or the means of 
obtaining pardon ; but of being proved to be in 
a manifest and Scripturally approved state of 
justification. His argument is, that '* by works" 
a man is shown to be in a justified state; that 
his profession of being in the Divine favor is 
justified and confirmed by his works, and not 
only by the faith of intellectual assent which is 
dead, and unproductive of good works .'^ 

It is now seen, that the two apostles perfectly 
agree, in teaching justification, in the sense of 
pardon hj faith alone; and justification, in the 
sense of proof and confirmation, by works of 
obedient faith. St, James declares that no man 
can be saved by mere faith. But that he does 
not mean the same kind and degree of faith, 
to which St. Paul attributes a saving efinicacy, 
his argument sufiiciently proves. He speaks 
pf a faith which is ''alone" and ''dead," St. 
Paul of the faith which is never alone, though 
it alone justifieth ; the faith of an humbled pen- 
itent, who not only yields speculative assent to 
the gospel facts, but flies with confidence to the 
atonement of Christ, for pardon of sin and de- 
liverance from it ; the faith, in short, which is 
the fruit of the Spirit, and which in after life, 



72 CAMPBEtLISM EXPOSED. 

manifests itself by yielding "the peaceable fruits 
of righteousness." 

There is then no foundation for the objection; 
the epistle of St. James gives no countenance 
to the propagators of the doctrine of^eiiiission 
of sins through baptism, but confirms and es- 
tablishes St. Paul's theory of "faith without 
works." 

II. A second objection is, that justification 
"without works," is unfavorable to morality, 
and leads to Antinomianism. 

This objection is as old as the days of St. 
Paul. WJhen he preached forgiveness of sins 
"by grace," "through faith," "without 
works," the Pharisaic Jew objected to the doc- 
trine on the ground that it gave a license to 
" continue in sin that grace might abound ;" 
and the Campbellite now, objects to it on the 
same ground. As the answer has, in part, been 
already given, we hope to dismiss the objec- 
tion with a few brief remarks. 

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, 
cannot lead to licentiousness, because the faith 
by which we are justified, is not alone in the 
heart that exercises it. In receiving Christ, as 
our old divines say, " faith is sola, yet not soli- 
tariay Faith though it is the sole condition of 
pardon, necessarily includes a " godly sorrow" 
for sin. It is not the trust of a careless im- 
penitent sinner, but the trust of one who sees 
his sinfulness, and feels his danger ; of one who 
being " slain" by the convincing power of the 
word and spirit of God, comes to him humbly 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 73 

lamenting his past disobedience, and confident- 
ly relying upon the sacrifice and mediation of 
Christ for pardon. This being the state of 
mind in which justifying faith is exercised ; and 
as justification does not terminate our probation 
and unconditionally guaranty the enjoyment of 
eternal life, but knowing that we can only re- 
tain our justified state, by continuing the exer- 
cise of that faith which '' works by love" and 
produces the fruits of holy obedience, it follows, 
that faith, as the sole condition of justification, 
furnishes not the shadow of a pretext for con- 
tinuing in sin. On the contrary, as it is by 
faith alone that we apprehend and lay hold of 
the atonement of Christ for pardon of sin, and 
deliverance from it, this doctrine becomes ex- 
clusively the doctrine of holiness and good 
works. 

III. But here a charge of " inconsistency" 
is presented, as a third objection. "If repen- 
tance," says the Campbellite, **goes before 
pardon, it must be a part of the condition, and 
consequently it cannot be by faith alone." 

Adverting to this objection formerly we pro- 
rnised, in noticing it, to exonerate the Bible 
method of justification from this charge of 
"inconsistency." This pledge shall now be 
redeemed. 

Repentance necessarily precedes justification 
-—so, also, does prayer. The humble penitent 
ought to pray, and will pray. Mr. Campbell, 
it is#rue, would deprive him of this privilege, 
but the Scriptures grant it to hiiyi, and make 
4 G 



74 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 



it his duty. Repentance and prayer, then, 
necessarily go before pardon; but -they are 
not necessary, as forming a part of the 
condition on which God remits sm, but as pre- 
paratory to the exercise of that condition. No 
man can believe '' with the heart unto righ- 
teousness," until he has repented and prayed. 
To use figurative language, repentance, though 
not the condition of justification, is the road 
the sinner must travel in order to arrive at that 
condition. The following supposed case, will 
clearly illustrate our meaning. The congress 
of the United States pass a law requiring every 
revolutionary soldier to sign his name, or make 
his mark on the pension list, in the city of 
Washington as the condition on which he shall 
receive his pension. Yonder is a veteran of 
'76, who resides 500 miles from said city, 
which he must travel before he can perform the 
condition. He starts and arrives at the seat of 
government, but this does not entitle him to the 
pension, nor is it any part of the terms on 
which he is to receive it. His pension depends 
on his signature alone. Thus the journey, 
though necessary to bring him to the point 
-where he can fulfill the required condition ofc 
the law, does not itself constitute any part (H 
that requirement. " -*• 

Now apply this to the case before us, and 
the objection will disappear. God requires 
faith, only, as the condition of pardon. But 
the sinner is so entirely alienated, an^has 
wandered so far astray, that he cannot comply 






CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 75 

with this requirement until he return by the 
road of repentance. But though he repent till 
his eyes weep bloody it does not obtain his par- 
don. It only brings him to that state of mind, 
and to that sense of his helpless condition, 
which prepares him for the exercise of that trust 
in, and reliance upon the merits of a crucified 
Savior, which justifying faith implies. No 
man is forgiven until he believes " with the 
heart;" and no man v^ho thus believes, can re- 
main unforgiven. Hence, repentance, though 
it precede justification, is only necessary to 
prepare the mind for the exercise of the faith, 
which alone is the condition of pardon. 

Lastly, we are told that '' to speak of the 
existence of repentance before faith, involves the 
absurdity of making the knowledge of sin pre- 
cede the knowledge of lav/," The difficulty 
here, is only imaginary, being predicated upon 
a mistaken notion of the nature of that faith 
which the Scriptures connect with justification. 
If faith in this sense was nothing more than 
the assent of the mind to the truth of the gospel 
facts, as our opponents teach, then indeed, to 
speak of repentance before faith, would be ab- 
surd. But it was shown in a former number 
that this view of faith is defective, and falls 
short of the Scriptural definition. Let it suf- 
fice for the present to observe, that the faith of 
assent, a cordial belief of the testimony of 
God, under the influence of divine grace, is 
sufficient to produce serious consideration of 
our ways, and sorrowful conviction of the evil 



76 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

and danger of sin ; we then turn to God with 
contrite hearts, and earnest prayers for mercy. 
This is called " repentance toward God ;" and 
this prepares us for the exercise of that '' faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ," which combines with 
the assent of the mind, the consent of the will^ 
and the reliance of the affections, and which 
in the economy of Heaven, is made the sole 
condition of our pardon. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 77 

CHAPTER III. 

DIVINE AGENCY— THE SPIRIT. 

Campbellism rejects Divine Agency on the heart — in 
connecting Remission with Baptism, like Roman 
CathoUcism, it contradicts Paul — it enjoins an impossi- 
ble term of Salvation — Campbellite doctrine of Assu- 
rance — fallacy of inferring our Acceptance from our 
Baptism — cases Exemplifying the foregoing — Mr. 0. 
quoted — Irreverent and Blasphemous language of 
Campbellites respecting the Spirit — Sciipture evidence 
of his direct influence on the heart — assurance of God's 
favor by the Spirit — evangelical Protestants are sub- 
stantially agreed, on this point. 

The principles previously established prove, 
that Mr. Campbell's '< ancient gospel" is not 
quite so '' ancfent" as the New Testament; and 
we did not originally design to pursue the sub- 
ject any farther. But the dangerous tendency 
of this theory will justify, if indeed it does not 
require, something more ; and having many ar- 
guments and objections in reserve, we proceed 
to state a few of them. 

Campbellism teaches that men believe the 
gospel, " by their own efforts," " after the ,same 
manner that they believe Rome to be situated 
on the Tiber," and that *' that is saving faith, 
which purifies the heart ;" then they " reform," 
also%y their own efforts ; then they are im- 
mersed by the efforts of another person, and 

g2 



78 CAMPBELLISM. EXPOSED. 

thus they become '' new creatures." This is 
the Alpha and the Omega of the process of re- 
generation, according to Mr. CampbelPs gospel. 
But as this system rejects all divine agency 
upon the heart, in exciting and aiding the sin- 
ner to turn to God, and in the production of 
faith, it is obviously unscriptural. " No man 
can come unto me except the Father draw 
him," says the Savior ; and the Scriptures tell 
us, that " the Lord opened the heart of Lydia 
to attend to the " things which were spoken 
by Paul." Now, the things which Paul spoke 
were the gospel and its requirements ; and 
these, according to Campbellism, are all that 
men need to induce and enable them to believe 
and obey ; but in Lydia' s case another agency 
was necessary, the Lord had to open and influ- 
ence her heart to attend to those things. The 
command to pray for sinners, necessarily, pre- 
supposes the exercise of a divine influonce upon 
their hearts ; and this influence is clearly taught 
by St. Paul in the 3d chapter .of 1st Corinthi- 
ans : '' Who then is Paul, and who is Apol- 
los, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as 
the Lord gave to every man." Here, the suc- 
cess of their ministry is not ascribed to the 
natural tendency of the words spoken, but to 
another cause — ^' even as the Lord gave to eve- 
ry man." For, continues the Apostle, " I have 
planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the in- 
crease." But how did God give the increase, 
if all the converting power was in the Vferd ? 
Paul was certainly a strong preacher, and pro- 



CAMPBELMSiyf EXPOSED. 79 

claimed the gospel with an ability not surpassed 
by Mr. Campbell, or any of his followers. He 
also possessed miraculous gifts and powers. 
But neither his preaching, nor his miracles were 
efficacious in saving souls, and increasing the 
church, till God sent his spirit to convince of 
sin, and bring the sinner to the cross of the Sa- 
vior for pardon. Thus the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles, in his efforts to reform the world, more 
modest than the apostles of Campbellism, in 
their reformation, repelled the idea that the 
conversion of his hearers was the effect of his 
preaching, irrespective of the influence of the 
Holy Spirit. 

In this passage a divine influence not con- 
tained in the word preachedv is represented as 
accompanying and rendering it productive ; and 
our Apostle in a few words, on another occa- 
sion, demolished the notion, that saving faith is 
exercised Solely by our own efforts. In CoL ii. 
12, the sinner is represented as being brought 
from the condemnation of sin, * 'through the faith 
.of the operation of God." That faith, then, by 
which " our old man is crucified," and through 
which we are raised to "newness of life," 
is ''of the operation of God," and not of our 
own unaided efforts. 

But do not understand us, that God believes 
for the sinner, or that He compels him to be- 
lieve. Such absurdities do not disgrace our 
creed. Man is so "far gone from original 
righteousness" that he has not the ability of 
himself, by his own efforts, to exercise that re- 



80 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

liance upon a crucified Savior, which is impli- 
ed in believing "with the heart unto righteous- 
ness." Hence the necessity for a divine agen- 
cy to grant him the power to repent and believe. 
The power to exercise faith is, therefore, the 
"gift" and "operation of God." But the 
grace or ability to believe, does not necessitate 
the exercise of that ability. , God gives the 
former and holds the sinner accountable for the 
latter. And thus, saving faith is both the gift 
of God, and the act of the creature. 

Another objection to the doctrine which in- 
separably connects immersion with remission 
of sins, is, that like the Catholic system, it 
contradicts the Apostle, who says, " It is God 
that justifieth." 

The Catholic; while he nominally concedes 
that God only can forgive sins, declares that 
sins can only be forgiven through the agency of 
the priest v/ho baptizes the penitent, or the 
priest who receives his confessioBs ; and the,^ 
Campbellite, while he 'disclaims all design of 
robbing God of the glory of remitting sins, 
proclaims that remission of sins is inseparably ? 
connected with the performance of an ordi- 
nance, a work which man has to do. But, un- 
fortunately for their propagators, neither of 
these schemes can be reconciled to the deciara* 
tion of the Apostle. For the confessor and the 
baptizer, being free agents, may refuse to act, 
in which case there could be no forgiveness, 
and, dying in that situation, the penitent must 
be lost in spite of the willingness of a merci- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 81 

ful God to save him. Thus the Catholic priest, 
and the Campbellite are beheld standing on the 
same ground, teaching the traditions of men in- 
stead of the commandments of God, and sub- 
stantially claiming a greater agency in the jus- 
tification of the sinner, than they concede to 
their Maker. But St. Paul tells us plainly, 
*' It is one God who shall justify the circum- 
cision by faith, and the uncircumcision through 
faith.^" We prefer hi^ opinion to both of 
these. 

Again, we object to the immersion theory 
for pardon, on the ground that it charges Him, 
in whom " were hid the treasures of wis- 
dom," with the folly of having failed to suit 
his religion to the circumstances of many for 
whom it was intended. 

Every believer in the Bible will admit that 
Christianity is designed to be universal, and that 
it will prevail wherever man is found. The 
requirements of this religion must, therefore, 
be practicable in all ^countries, and attainable 
under ^11 circumstances. Now we do not 
question the adaptation of Christianity to all the 
countries, and states, and conditions of men ; 
but Mr. Campbell's views of Christianity are 
very different. No man can be a christian with- 
out remission of sins, and remission, according 
to Mr. Campbell, can only be had through 
immersion ; but immersion is neither attaina- 
ble in all countries, nor practicable under all 
circumstances. 

In the Arctic regions, where, during two 
4* 



82 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

thirds of the year, the water is all frozen, and 
in the torrid plains of Africa and Asia where 
the supplies of water are barely sufficient to 
sustain life, immersion is impossible. In our 
own land, the cold is sometimes so severe that 
immersion is impracticable and dangerous ; and 
sometimes, the drought prevails till the pools and 
streams have disappeared in many parts of the 
country, and it is rendered extremely difficult, 
if not impossible, to find water for this cere- 
mony. Add to this, that immersion is fre- 
quently forbidden by the situation of the peni- 
tent. Numerous cases of persons in delicate 
and declining health, might be adduced. Let 
one suffice. See that lady in the last stage of 
consumption. Reduced to a skeleton, her 
strength is gone, her days are numbered, 'Know^ 
ing that she must shortly appear before her 
Creator, in a world jof spirits, and feeling her- 
self a sinner, every power of thought and de- 
sire of soul is^directed to Him for mercy. But 
she has iffiv^ been' immersed," and now she 
;cannot'be ; hence, shb must dieninforgiven, and 
be eternally excluded from heaven. 

We are aware, that Campbellism attempts, to 
evade this result, by supposing it possible^as 
immersion in her case is out of the question, 
for her to be saved without it. But this misera- 
ble evasion amounts to a surrender of the cause 
which it is designed to sustain. God has re- 
vealed but one method of pardoning sin. Wher- 
ever the gospel is preached, its terms must be 
complied with, or there can be no remission. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 83 

The case of this lady is in some sense, the 
case of all sinners. Though she cannot be 
immersed now she is dying, she has neglected 
many opportunities of attending to this while in 
health. Other sinners do no more, and incur 
no more guilt by their neglect than she has 
done. Therefore, to admit that she may be 
saved without immersion, is to admit the truth, 
that all may be saved without it. 

Indeed, we cannot conceive of a greater ab- 
surdity, than to suppose salvation possible with- 
out immersion, and yet believe Campbellism to 
be true. It involves the absurdity of imagining 
the salvation of one who is ^' unjustified, unad- 
opted, unsanctified, unconverted, unregenerated, 
not born of God," " lost to all christian life 
and enjoyment," and destitute of " the peace 
of God, and the hope of heaven." For this, 
according to Mr. Campbell, is the wretched sit- 
uation of the unimmersed. 

This systeiii then amounts to the declaration, 
'* no immersion — no salvation." And as the 
lady above menfioned, cannot be immersed, she 
cannot be saved. And so with all who die in 
thbse cou^n tries, at those times,, and under cir- 
cumstances that render a resort to this mode of 
baptism inexpedient or impossible. Let it also 
bq observed that the neglect of the baptizer, or 
the postponement of his work for a day, or a 
single hour, must endanger the Soul of the ap- 
plicant, and may occasion its final ruin. A fit 
of apoplexy or something else calls him^sudden- 
ly away ; and however deep his penitence, fer- 



84 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

vent his prayers, and strong his faith, he is lost, 
because the baptizer neglected his duty. 

Such are the unavoidable consequences of 
that system which we oppose. It charges the 
" only wise God" with the folly of having es- 
tablished a religion, intended for universal ap- 
plication, which can never be practiced in many 
parts of the earth, and which is unsuited to the 
wants and conditions of helpless man ; and it 
involves the absurdity of making the soul's sal- 
vation to depend upon the 7mll of the baptizer, 
instead of the faith of the penitent, and the 
mercy of God. Could such a system ema- 
nate from the Fountain of wisdom ; or is it 
the offspring of some bewildered visionary, 
" ignorant of the righteousness of God," and 
laboring to ** establish his own righteous- 
ness ?" 

Let us now, in contrast with Mr. Campbell's 
substitute, look at God's plan for remission, as 
revealed in the Scriptures, and defended in these 
essays. - 

Men are sinners. The gospel finds them in 
this condition, and the Holy Spirit convinces 
them of it, by visiting every heart, and con^ 
necting His secret influences v/ith the external 
means of grace, to awaken the sinner to a sense 
of his danger, and win his heart to God. By 
this operation of the " good Spirit," in con- 
junction, with the Word, read or expounded, 
conviction of the fact of sin is produced. 
Yielding to this conviction, the sinner is brought 
to apprehend the penalty of the law, and'pain- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 85 

ful anticipations of the consequences of sin fol- 
low ; and thus he is moved by a sense of his 
danger to look out for a remedy ; and this be- 
ing disclosed in the same revelation, and unfold- 
ed by the same Spirit from whose secret in- 
fluences he has received this sense of his dan- 
ger, he confesses his sins before God, and like 
the publican in the temple, exclaims, " God be 
merciful to me a sinner." And thus, as was 
shown in our last, his penitence and prayers, 
though not the condition of pardon, prepare his 
mind for the exercise of that act of faith, which 
the apostle calls believing " with the heart f^ 
in which he at once acknowledges his own un- 
worthiness and helplessness, and flies with con- 
fidence to the mercy of his oflfended God, pro- 
claimed "through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus.*' 

Now, though as depraved beings, we have 
not the natural ability thus to come to Christ 
and believe, yet this is compensated in the fact 
that the grace of the Holy Spirit imparts the 
ability to all who desire and seek it ; and hence 
if we are not saved the fault is wholly our own. 
All who improve the grace that is given, and 
yield to the drawings of the Spirit, are aided 
and graciously excited, confidently to rely upon 
the promises of God, and with a believing heart 
to " lay hold on the hope set before them." And 
he who thus believes is not dependent on " an 
: arm of flesh" to take him " down into the water" 
and obtain his pardon ; he has already obtain- 
ed it "*' by grace, through faith," without bap- 

H 



86 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

tism, or any other " works* of righteousness." 
This is God's plan of justifying the ungodly; 
a plan which manifests his grace and goodness 
to fallen man by placing the conditions of par- 
don within the reach of every one who hears 
the gospel, so that no external circumstance can 
prevent a compliance. " Whosoever will" may 
" come, and partake of the waters of life freely." 
Though he be perishing amid the perpetual 

* We were recently favored with the perusal of a let- 
ter from a Campbellite teacher, in which it is denied that 
the New Testament speaks of " repentance, baptism, the 
Lord's Supper, or prayer, or praise, or preaching, or other 
christian duties, as being works ;" and asserted that, 
" wherever works are mentioned, it is in reference to 
something else than the gospel." Really this is something 
we did not previously understand. We had been so igno- 
rant as to suppose that St. Paul, when he exhorted the Co- 
rinthians to be " always abounding in the ivork of the 
Lord," intended to enjoin the duties of the gospel; and that 
the command to the church at Ephesus, '-Remember, there- 
fore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy 
first Tvorks,^^ did mean that they should repent or prayj 
or perform " other christian duties." These were our 
opinions ; and under the influence of a "purblind theolo- 
gy," this state of ignorance might have remained, but for 
the labors of this sapient reformer, who has discovered 
that " to X'ork out our own salvation" does not require the 
performance of " christian duties," but works of Jewish 
or Turkish or Pagan requirement, for wherever the apos- 
tles " mention works, it is in reference to something else 
than the gospel." 

To be serious: that system which for its support re- 
quires its advocates thus to climb to the pinnacle of the 
superlative degree of nonsense, cannot be of God. If it 
can survive the present generation, we are much mistaken. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 87 

snows of the north, or scorched by the vertical 
rays of an African sun, where there is no water, 
or sick and at the point of death, 

" In every condition, in sickness or health, 
In poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth," 

the penitent may comply with God's terms, be- 
lieve with the heart, receive remission of sins, 
and go home to glory. 

It is thus seen, that the Scripture scheme of 
justification by faith alone, displays the good- 
ness and wisdom of God, in its admirable ad- 
aptation to the wants and conditions of man, 
and that it is every way worthy of its Divine 
Author; while the immersion scheme, involves 
so many difficulties and absurdities, and is so 
entirely defective in meeting the wants of the 
human family, that it is with difficulty we can 
assign it so respectable an origin, as the imagi- 
nations of men possessing common sense and 
sound judgment. 

An assurance, or comfortable persuasion of 
regeneration and adoption is, in the New Testa- 
ment, promised to those who receive remission 
of sins. *' Being justified by faith we h^iYe peace 
with God." Though the blessings of regenera- 
tion and adoption are different from each other, 
and from justification, yet they are not to be 
separated, because they take place at the same 
time, and they all enter into the experience of 
the same individual ; so that no man is justified 
without being regenerated and adopted, and no 
man is regenerated and made a son of God, 
who is not justified. And he who thus becomes 



88 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

*' a new creature" is turnished with the evi- 
dence that he is freed from condemnation. Thus 
'* the peace of God" is inseparably connected 
with remission of sins. A similar connection 
obtains in Mr. Campbell's system. But as his 
method of obtaining pardon is unauthorized by 
Scripture, so, also, is his method of arriving at 
a knowledge of sins forgiven. 

His followers are taught to predicate an assu- 
rance of their adoption upon the fact that they 
have been immersed, and thereby to make im- 
mersion the means of obtaining pardon, and the 
principal evidence that they are pardoned. — 
They reason thus : '* If a good and solvent man 
were to promise me a sum of money, upon the 
condition that I performed a certain work, hav- 
ing confidence in his honesty and ability, and 
knowing that I had complied with the condition,* 
I would be sure of the reward ; and as God, 
whose word cannot fail, has promised remission 
of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit consequent 
upon baptism, I know that my obedience has 
secured my pardon and my adoption." This 
kind of logic is in perfect character with the 
system they have embraced, and by it they at- 
tempt to reason themselves into the belief that 
"all is well." Having previously shown that 
the Scriptures do not promise remission of sins, 
in the sense it is here understood, upon the 
condition of baptism, we proceed to prove the 
reasoning here adopted to be fallacious, and that 
the conclusion drawn from it is dangerous. 
If the above argument will hold good in the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 89 

case to which it is applied, it must be equally 
valid in all similar cases ; consequently, as God 
has promised " the Holy Spirit to them that 
a^A," and salvation to such as "c«//upon the 
name of the Lord," he who has prayed is au- 
thorized to infer, that he has the Holy Spirit 
and is saved. But this conclusion is no where 
warranted by the Word of God, nor can it be 
reconciled to the experiences of christians ; for 
though we may receive the "Holy Spirit" and 
salvation from sin, in the act of prayer, it is 
not true that these blessings are always receiv- 
ed in the performance of that duty ; and hence, 
to conclude ourselves pardoned and adopted be- 
cause we have prayed, is wholly unjustifiable. 
And yet, this process has more to support it, 
than that upon which the Campbellite predi- 
cates his confidence ; for the Scriptures present 
prayer as having a connection with remission 
of sins, which they no where ascribe to baptism. 
They inform us of some, at least, who were 
pardoned and saved without being bapti!Z^d, but 
we have yet to learn that any one ever was par- 
doned without previous repentance and prayer. 
The fallacy of the attempt to infer our accep- 
tance with God from a knowledge of our bap- 
tism, is further seen in the fact, that every bap- 
tized individual has the same kind of evidence, 
and on the same ground may prove himself a 
a child of God ; a position so entirely untenable 
that it carries its own refutation. Mr. Camp- 
bell, indeed, is aware of this difficulty ; but in 
attempting to guard against it, he has left the 
h2 



90 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

point sufficiently vulnerable to sustain our 
charge. After having asserted concerning the 
apostolic age, that " no person was said to be 
converted until he was immersed ; and j^that] 
all persons v/ho were immersed, were said to 
be converted," and assured his followers, that 
" when they were led down into the water, and 
concealed in its womb," that "there their con- 
sciences were released, and their old sins purg- 
ed away," he anticipates the objection that his 
doctrine v/ould lead to the conclusion that every 
immersed person is born of God, and tries to 
evade it by saying, ''If the immersed person 
do not believe the gospel, he is, to speak after 
the manner of men, still-horn ; but if he believe 
the gospel he is born of God> whenever he 
is born of water."* Now, bear in mind, that 
Mr. Campbell admits no higher degree of faith 
than a historical belief of the gospel facts, just 
as we "believe Eome to be situated on the 
Tiber," and all who thus believe, he asserts, 
to be " born of God when they are born of 
water." And as every sinner in Christendom, 
except he be a sheer infidel, believes the gospel 
facts, it follows according to Mr. Campbell's 
own showing, that every immersed individual, 
unless he contemn the Bible, and for some sin- 
ister design act the part of a base and consci- 
ous hypocrite, has evidence that he is bom of 



* These quotations, made from memory from Mr. C.'g 
" Millennial Harbinger," may not be verbatim, but they 
are substantially correct. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 91 

God, and adopted into bis family. Such is the 
conclusion. 

But this is equally repugnant to gospel facts, 
and to facts of every day occurrence. Simon, 
the sorcerer, " believed (the gospel facts no 
doubt) and was baptized," but remained '' in 
the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of in- 
iquity ;" and, alas ! had he lived to the present 
day, how many might he have found to keep 
him in countenance ! It is painful to reflect that 
numbers with a historic belief (which Simon 
certainly had) have been led down into the 
water, and "intelligently" and with the "full 
faith" of A. Campbell, immersed for remission 
of sins, who came out of the water, as they 
went into it, unpardoned sinners, and whose 
works have, ever since, declared them to be 
destitute of the " washing of regeneration" and 
the " renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

In presenting this difficulty we were once ad- 
monished by an opponent, to look at home, and 
remember that the members of our own denom- 
ination sometimes fail to yield the fruits of the 
Spirit. This is a lamentable truth; and one 
which we neither deny, nor attempt to extenu- 
ate ; but the cases are entirely dissimilar. We 
have no "institution" which enables us to pro- 
nounce to a certainty that the sins of our mem- 
bers " are purged away." Content to stand 
on gospel principles, we tell men " to examine 
themselves," and then we judge of them " by 
their fruits ;" but Mr. Campbell has assumed a 
different ground. He has " discovered" among 



92 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

** the rubbish of human traditions^ an institution 
inseparably connected with remission of sins, 
like which there was no institution since the 
world began ;" and this, he tells us, *' is chris- 
tian immersion, sometimes called conversion." 
In this, then, he claims an infallible rule, which 
enables him to pronounce all his members (hy- 
pocritical infidels excepted) really converted ; 
and by which every immersed person may know 
of a truth, that he is an adopted child of God. 
But Campbellites and the world do know, that 
multitudes, who, in all probability, cordially 
believed the gospel facts, and were immersed 
for remission, have no more of Christianity than 
the name. Therefore, this rule will not apply 
to all ; and of course it is good for nothing. 

Some of our opponents here make another ef- 
fort to escape, by asserting that they, like us, 
believe in the possibility of apostatizing from 
the favor of God. But this effort, is, also, abor- 
tive. " If any man have not the spirit of Christ," 
he cannot lose it ; and he who has that spirit 
will manifest it by its fruits, as pointed out by 
the apostle. But many of the immersed, so far 
from having shown any of the fruits of the 
Spirit, by a pious walk, have ever continued a 
notorious indulgence in the '' works of the 
flesh ;" and hence, as they never possessed the 
grace or favor of God, in the sense of pardon, 
they could not have lost it. By way of con- 
firmation, take the following statements ; 

During the prevalence of cholera inKentucky, 
when the water mania was at its zenith, the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 93 

Campbellite teachers labored to convince the 
people that the Almighty was angry with them 
because they were disobedient, and that he 
would speedily destroy them, unless they sub- 
mitted to be immersed. These assertions were 
received and believed, and hence hundreds of 
poor deluded sinners, instead of humbling them- 
selves before God, '' with fasting, and with 
weeping, and with mourning," fled for refuge 
to the water, and there, by making " one low 
bow," expected to obtain salvation. This act 
sufficiently proved their sincerity. But how 
few of them have since manifested more of the 
•' fruits of the Spirit," than are seen in the char- 
acter of the unbaptized Mussulman ? A case 
in point. A young man, who during that time 
was immersed for remission, was guilty of pro- 
fane swearing a few hours after his baptism ; 
the same week, was seen in a state of intoxica- 
tion, and continued a course of intemperance 
till it sent his soul to eternity. Now it is next 
to an impossibility to believe, that any one in 
his situation, expecting every day to be called 
to a world of spirits by the dreaded epidemic, 
could be immersed from hypocritical or dis- 
honest motives. He certainly believed the gospel 
facts as developed by his teacher, had all the 
faith Mr. Campbell requires ; and if immersion 
is, to any man, proof of his being a child of 
God, it was this to him ; but he continued to 
*'live after the flesh," and showed the spirit 
of " the wicked one," even from the hour of 
his baptism. 



94 CAMPEELLISM EXPOSED. 

Another case. In the county of B , in 

this state, two men, whom we will call A and 
B, conversing about Mr. Campbell and his fol- 
lowers, A declared that he would join them the 
next Sabbath. This was questioned by B, and 
finally the sum of five dollars was staked upon 
the issue. Sabbath came, and A presented him- 
self as a candidate for the saving ordinance. 
B was also present, and informed the baptizer 
of the pending wager. But as A averred his 
belief of the gospel facts, and demanded bap- 
tism for remission of sins, the ceremony pro- 
ceeded, and B lost his money.* This man, 
though he honestly believed the gospel facts, 
could not have been pardoned ; for he not only 
regarded ''iniquity in his heart," but was im- 
mersed with the design of putting the " wages 
of sin" into his pocket : and yet he can plead 
his baptism in evidence of his pardon, with as 
much confidence as any other Campbellite. 

It is presumable that all, who, upon being 
sincerely awakened by the spirit of God, fly to 
the water for rehef, learn by sad experience the 
following truth : 

'* Nor running brook, nor flood, nor sea. 
Can wash the dismal stain away." 

At any rate, we have had information of some, 
who after their baptism declared in the plainest 



* Neither this, nor the case before named came under 
the immediate notice of the writer ; but he received both 
from sources which he considers unquestionable. 



GAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 95 

manner that they had been duped, and wofully 
disappomted. 

The following circumstance, of which we 
were recently informed, is in point. A gentle- 
man not far from Cincinnati, w^ho was deeply 
penitent, upon hearing a proclamation of Mr. 
Campbell's gospel, believed the report, and re- 
joicing to find so easy a road to heaven, was 
immersed, with full confidence of obtaining re- 
lief from a guilty conscience. But, alas ! instead 
of the anticipated " peace and joy," he felt, 
as one on a similar occasion expressed himself, 
nothing but the cold w^ater. Being sadly de- 
ceived in the effects of the operation, he did not 
conceal it from his brethren ; and they, suppos- 
ing, perhaps, that there had been something 
defective in the work, advised him to try it 
again ; but not relishing the proposal, and being 
disgusted with such mummery, he concluded 
Christianity to be a mere cheat, and by turning 
infidel, succeeded for a time in stifling his con- 
victions. In this condition he went to a camp 
meeting, where the word preached, again reach- 
ing his heart, he sought the Lord according to 
his Word, by repentance and prayer, and 
learned by joyful experience, that God has 
power to forgive sins, " by grace" " through 
faith," without one drop of w^ater. 

Other circumstances and cases, in character 
similar to those above mentioned, might be ad- 
duced ; but we forbear. The observant reader, 
familiar with the practical operations of Camp- 
bellism, needs neither arguments nor facts to 



96 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

convince him of the absurdity of the attempt to 
prove that an individual is regenerated because 
he is baptized. Having seen the entire failure 
of a burial in water to produce holiness of life, 
he is prepared to smile at the delusion, and to 
pity the condition of all who rely upon it. 

But lest some should suppose our coloring 
too high, and imagine that Mr. Campbell does 
not make baptism so important as we represent, 
we give another quotation from his writings. 
In the '« Debate with M'Calla," as published 
by Mr. Campbell, he tells us that God " ap- 
pointed baptism to be to every one that believed 
the record he has given of his Son, a formal 
pledge on his part of that believer's personal 
acquittal or pardon ; so signiiicant and so ex- 
pressive, that v/hen the baptized believer rises 
out of the v/ater, is born of ivater, enters the 
world the second time, he enters it as innocent^ 
as clean, as unspotted as an angeL His con- 
science is purged from guilt, his body is v/ash- 
ed with pure water, even the " washing of re- 
generation." Here the Campbellite is taught 
by his leader, that baptism, is a formal pledge 
of Ids pardon, and that he rose from the water 
as holy as an angeL And certainly, from 
such a beginning, we are authorized to expect a 
life of corresponding holiness. But many who 
thus "entered the world from the womb of 
waters," " as innocent, as clean, as unspotted 
as angels," really appear the " worse for mend- 
ing." Alas, for Christianity ! 

The cases mentioned of the entire failure of 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 97 

the ** regenerating bath" to make practical 
christians, were not adduced to wound the feel- 
ings of our opponents. To sport with the feel- 
ings of any man, or wantonly to offend one of 
the " little ones" of God's family, forms no part 
of our design in writing these essays. That 
some whose heads have been bewildered by 
Campbell's dogmas, are sincere christians, we 
neither doubt, nor wish to doubt; but we, ne- 
vertheless, firmly believe that those dogmas 
never did make a christian, and never can make 
one. And, hence, without the least desire to 
reproach the pious of that sect, by charging 
them with the sins of their brethren, we felt it 
our duty, in opposing a dangerous departure 
from " the faith once delivered to the saints," to 
test its truth by inspecting its practical effects. 
This course seemed the more justifiable from 
the consideration that the system we oppose 
teaches men to consider themselves justified and 
sanctified because they have been baptized. To 
show the insufficiency of this kind of evidence, 
the circumstances referred to above, were intro- 
duced, and we still look upon them as proof of 
the strongest character. For certainly, if one 
individual who with Mr. Campbell's '' full 
faith" received baptism for remission of sins, 
has manifested himself to be still in the " gall 
of bitterness," it shows to ocular demonstra- 
tion that baptism does not afford evidence of a 
justified state ; and if one case is proof so deci- 
sive, who can resist the accumulated testimony 
of the fact, that numbers, perhaps a large ma- 
5 I 



98 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

jority, who were thus '^ washed" have, by 
continuing 'Uo wallow in the mire of sin," 
manifested a total destitution of the christian 
graces ? 

That Mr. Campbell authorizes his followers 
to consider themselves the adopted sons of God 
because they have been baptized, was shown al- 
ready; and that they take him at his word, and re- 
ly upon his instructions, is clearly seen in their 
words and actions. When one of their teachers 
was asked for his experience, he replied, '* I 
believed and was immersed, and this is all the 
experience I have, or desire to have." Another 
informed his hearers, that if they believed the 
Bible and would let him immerse them, he 
would ensure them the enjoyment of heaven ; 
that he would plead their cause in the day of 
judgment, by stating that they had believed and 
obeyed, and therefore must be admitted ; and 
from the pulpit we have frequently heard the fol- 
lowing argument, if argument it may be called : 
'' Men may be happy and have good feelings 
in imagining their sins forgiven, but it is all 
delusion ; the immersed, and they only, have a 
knowledge of forgiveness, satisfactory and cer- 
tain. Suppose a criminal under sentence of 
death, sues for a reprieve, which is granted upon 
condition that he depart from the state within 
ten days ; he may have the reprieve in his pos- 
session, with the governor's signature, and 
might therefore imagine himself secure, but it 
is certain he is not pardoned until he pass the 
boundary of the state. So it is with the sinner, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 09 

who is promised a pardon upon the condition 
of a 'believing immersion.' As soon as he is 
immersed, he has evidence of forgiveness ; and 
until then, whatever may be his feelings, or 
his hopes, they are delusive, and he is under 
condemnation. But when he has obeyed, he is 
assured of his pardon — ^not a doubt remains — 
he may rejoice evermore." 

Now from the above it is clear, that the 
Campbellite is taught to view his baptism as 
evidence of his regeneration and pardon ; a doc- 
trine wholly unknown to the New Testament, 
and as dangerous as it is unscriptural. It is true, 
the Scriptures teach that the christian need not 
walk in darkness, or remain destitute of a 
knowledge of sins forgiven ; but their method 
of obtaining this knovvdedge, and their revela- 
tions of its nature, are as far removed from the 
teachings of A. Campbell, as light from dark- 
ness. For while he would predicate this know- 
ledge upon the evidence of our baptism, the 
Scriptures refer it to the witness of the Spirit, 
*' sent forth into our hearts crying, Abba, Fa- 
ther." _ 

But here we touch aTcey whose sound is pro- 
bably as grating to the feelings of our oppo- 
nents as the most horrid jargon to the refined 
and sensitive musician ; for though Mr. Camp- 
bell admits that the christian must possess " the 
spirit of Christ," it is much doubted whether 
he or his followers believe the Holy Spirit to 
have any such influence upon the souls of men 
aa christians consider the Bible to teach. In 



100 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

the Campbellite vocabulary, the Spirit, as con- 
cerned in our salvation, means either the writ- 
ten Word, or a disposition of mind consistent 
with the christian profession. From the earli- 
est dawnings of this new gospel, its propagators 
have manifested a disposition to play off their 
irony and ridicule against the idea of the love 
of God being shed abroad in the heart ''by the 
Holy Ghost which is given unto us." One of 
their most popular leaders in this state, was 
formerly in the habit, in his public harangues, 
of classing this doctrine with the ghost and witch 
stories of a credulous and superstitious age, and 
of inquiring with a satirical sneer, of those who 
profess to have received the Holy Spirit, '' How 
did you get it ? Where did it enter into you ? 
At the head, or the feet, or under the fifth rib, 
or where ?" Another of the same school, and 
in the same strain, has been heard to ask, 
*' Granting that you are possessed of a Spirit, 
how do you know but that it is the spirit of the 
devil ?" And others with equal recklessness 
of consequences and disregard of the teachings 
of Scripture, have said, '' While the orthodox 
talk of having the Spirit in their hearts, we are 
content to carry it in omx pockets.'''' 

That the above, or similar irreverent and 
blasphemous expressions, have been used by 
the popular teachers of Campbellism, is sus- 
ceptible of abundant proof; and though Mr. 
Campbell may never have used them, they are 
certainly the natural consequences of his sys- 
tem. The positions assumed in his system, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 101 

and some of the arguments advanced for its sup- 
port, are so much like those resorted to by the 
opposers of revealed religion, that the utmost 
we can expect as a general result, of those who 
embrace it is, that they have a ^' form of godli- 
ness," while they deny '' the power." 

The influence of the Holy Spirit upon the 
heart, is one of the doctrines of Christianity 
against which deism, under the names of natu- 
ral and rational religion, has urged its most 
strenuous objections; and the teachings of Mr. 
Campbell and his followers, on this subject, are 
well calculated to keep these objections in 
countenance. In addition to the assumption, 
stated formerly, that man does not need the as- 
sistance of the Spirit, to induce, or to enable 
him to turn to God, Campbellism tells us, that 
such an influence is impossible ; that we can 
receive no ideas or impressions except through 
the medium of the senses ; and as the eye can- 
not see nor the ear hear the influence which the 
Spirit is said to exercise, it is, therefore, argued 
that the idea of such an intercourse is only a 
whim of the imaghiation. It is ti'ue, this ar- 
gument is adduced to oppose the doctrine that 
sinners are aided and excited by the Spirit, to 
repent and believe the gospel ; but it is equally 
opposed to the doctrine of the witness of the 
Spirit with the spirit of the believer, and, also, 
as Mr. Waterman has shown^ to the fact of the 
miraculous gift of tongues on the day of Pente- 
cost. Indeed, to admit the above argument, 
and carry it out to its legitimate results, would 

I 2 



102 CAMPBELLISM EXl^OSED, 

be to reduce Christianity to a mere system of 
ethics, differing but little from the moral codes 
of heathen philosophy, except in its external 
rites and ceremonies. 

But we do not admit it. It is assertion, and 
not proof. It never has been proved, nor can 
it ever be, that there is any thing impossible in 
the intercourse of the Spirit of God with the 
spirits of men. Cannot that Being who made 
us, who is himself a pure spirit, have immedi- 
ate access to our spirits, so as to influence our 
thoughts, affections, and wills, without either 
words or signs ? To admit the possibility of 
this, is certainly far more reasonable, than to 
deny it. Before such an influence can be proved 
to be impossible, the objector must thoroughly 
understand the laws of perception, memory^ 
and association, which is more, we believe, 
than any philosopher, however deep his re- 
searches into the causes of the phenomena of 
mind, ever pretended to know. It is readily 
admitted that when men suggest thoughts, or 
influence the minds of other men, they must 
do it through the medim of words or signs. But 
to suppose these the only means by which this 
can be effected, is to found an objection wholly 
upon our ignorance. To argue, because we 
cannot do this, that, therefore, God cannot, and 
to deny with the Campbellite the possibility of 
this divine intercourse and influence with our 
spirits and upon our hearts, is to reduce the 
Almighty down to our finite minds and limited 
understandings ; to imagine him " altogether 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 103 

such a one as ourselves ;" and to reject some 
of the most positive declarations and comforting 
promises of the gospel. 

Some remarks were introduced in the last 
paragraph to show that an intercourse of the 
Spirit of God with our spirits, is not impossible. 
But why contend for the possibility of that which 
is clearly taught in that book, which our op- 
ponents profess to receive as the Word of God ? 
In the Scriptures, which form the only sufficient 
rule both of our faith and practice, and become 
the arbiter in all controversies involving chris- 
tian principles, the whole work of salvation in 
the soul is represented as being wrought by the 
Holy Spirit. We understand the Bible in this 
light, and believe that common sense and fair 
criticism can view it in no other. Few things 
seem more plainly taught in the Scriptures, than 
the doctrine of the operations of the Spirit, in 
convincing the sinner of sin, and in comforting 
the believer. 

Before the flood, the Holy Spirit is represent- 
ed as striving with the antediluvians, to bring 
them to repentance, of whom the Almighty de- 
clared, '* My Spirit shall not always strive with 
man." To sustain his system, Mr. Campbell 
tells us that the ** Spirit," here, only means 
the preaching of Noah. But this, again, is as- 
sertion without proof. God says it was his 
Spirit ; Mr. Campbell says, it was Noah's 
preaching. The reader will be at no loss which 
to believe.' 

Under the law the wicked are said to "grieve/* 



104 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

and to *' resist the Holy Ghost." which certain- 
ly implies that it then strove with them. Here 
we are again told, that to 7'esist the Spirit means 
only to resist the JVord, But once for all, we 
remark, that this assertion in the absence of all 
proof, and contrary to the plain letter of Scrip- 
ture, comes with very ill grace from those who 
so frequently tell us, that " the Scriptures mean 
what they say." 

In reference to the gospel dispensation, we 
are taught in the New Testament, that the 
work of the Spirit is to reprove the sinner and 
bring him back to God, as well as to comfort 
and sustain the christian. That the Spirit con- 
vinces of sin, is obvious from numerous pas- 
sages and arguments in the discourses of our 
Lord, and in the writings of the apostles. Be- 
fore his crucifixion, the Savior promised to send 
*' the Comforter, even the Spi^t of truth," to 
abide with his followers for ever, and to '* re^ 
prove the world of sin." On this passage we 
observe, Ist^ This canac^t mean the Spirit in 
its miraculous gifts, forithat was given for a 
time only, but the Spirit here promised is to 
"abide for ever;" and, 2nd. The work and 
influences of the Spirit as here pointed out, can- 
not be restricted to the christian, because a part 
of that work is to " reprove the world of sin, 
because they believe not ;" and as "he that be- 
lie veth not is condemned already," consequent- 
ly the person thus reproved is no christian. It 
is true that the Savior declared the world could 
not receive the Comforter, and this is urged by 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. - 105 

Campbellites in proof of their notion that the 
Spirit has nothing to do with the sinner. But 
the effort is certainly a failure. We readily 
concede, that a worldly minded sinner cannot 
receive the Spirit as a comforter, for it is *' be- 
cause ye are sons" that " God hath sent forth 
the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, 
Abba, Father ;" but this by no means proves that 
the sinner cannot be reproved by the Spirit. 
Indeed, one of his offices, developed in the text 
before us, is to ** reprove the world of sin." In 
doing which he must operate upon the hearts 
of sinners ; and when they open the door and 
let him in, they being no longer of '' the world," 
receive him as a comforter. 

We are wandering from our main object by 
enlarging upon a point which we intended bare- 
ly to touch, but having engaged in it we shall 
take the liberty to introduce another argument. 
The Savior is represented in Scripture, as '' the 
Sun of Righteousness," the illuminator of man. 
This may be said, chiefly with reference to the 
gospel as published to the world ; but the idea 
is sometimes used in a sense so comprehensive, 
that we must travel J)eyond the circulation of 
the gospel to find its application. St. John 
speaks of Christ as '*the true light, which 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world." 
Now, a large portion that come "into the world" 
are not only sinners, but pagans and barbarians, 
destitute of the knowledge contained in the 
written Word; but still Christ ''lighteth them," 
which he must do by his Spirit, convincing 
5* 



106 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

them of sin, and giving them some knowledge 
of good and evil. Under whatever restrictions 
and limitations the phrase '' all men"" may at 
times be used, they cannot, according to the 
genius of language, apply to the phrase before 
us, '^ every man." By saying every man in 
Kentucky^ we necessarily include the whole of 
the inhabitants of the state; and so ''every 
man that cometh into the world" must mean 
all, without exception, that ever did, or ever 
will inhabit the world. Hence, in order to find 
one man v/ho is and ever has been destitute of 
the reproofs and strivings of the Spirit of Christ, 
we must go to some other planet. He never 
came into the world, and consequently, cannot 
be found among the children of men on the 
earth. 

Having now seen that the doctrine of the 
operation of the Spirit upon the heart of the 
sinner, is authenticated by the Word of infal- 
lible inspiration, we resume the consideration 
of the believer's evidence, that he is freed from 
" condemnation." 

That it is the privilege of the child of God 
to have an assurance of his favor, sufficient to 
impart substantial comfort, few christians will 
deny. If then, being "by nature children of 
wrath," it is possible for us to become '' new 
creatures," and to enjoy satisfactory evidence 
that '' we have passed from death unto life," 
it deeply concerns us to know what that evi- 
dence is, and upon what it is predicated. And 
having seen that the Campbellite's evidence, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 107 

immersion, will not suffice, even to hang a hope 
upon, we turn to the New Testament, and ex- 
amine the case by the principles we may there 
find. 

In addition to the Savior's promise of " the 
Comforter" to abide with his followers, the 
New Testament informs us that God " dwells 
in them," that they are "born of the Spirit," 
"led by the Spirit," " justified and sanctified by 
the Spirit," and " sealed" by the same Spirit, 
"unto the day of redemption." If then, the 
situation of the christian be such as to warrant 
the application of the above phrases to him, it 
is certainly reasonable to suppose that he does 
not remain ignorant of the fact, that he has 
passed " from darkness to light ;" and what we 
here suppose reasonable, is abundantly estab- 
lished by Scripture testimony. " There is now 
no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
Jesus." " Examine yourselves, whether ye be 
in the faith." " If we say we have fellowship 
with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do 
not the truth." " Wi that believeth on the Son 
of God hath the witness in himself." So says 
the Book. And when we inquire, what is the 
" witness" which the believer has " in him- 
self?" the same volume furnishes a definite 
answer. " As many as are led by the Spirit 
of God, they are the sons of God. For ye 
have not received the spirit of bondage again 
to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth 
witnesB^ with our spirit^ that we are the child- 



108 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

ren of God." Rom. viii, 14, 16. In tMs pas- 
sage it is clear, that, '* the Spirit of God," men- 
tioned in the 14th verse, and '^ the Spirit" 
which '*beareth witness," in the 16th, are the 
same ; consequently, ** the witness" which the 
believer has '' m himself," is *' the Spirit of 
God." 

If there remain a doubt relative to the cor- 
rectness of this conclusion, the qualifying term 
^Htself,-' seems sufficient to remove it. " The 
Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit," 
This language is so emphatic and unequivocal, 
that it would be difficult to find anything more 
clear and definite. Suppose the apostle had 
said, *' The water of baptism itself bears wit- 
ness of our son-ship." Would any Campbel- 
lite doubt his meaning ? No. The text would 
then be urged, and very properly too, as proof 
decisive, in his favor. But as it stands, it is 
equally decisive against him. The Holy Ghost 
himself, and neither our baptism nor our pray- 
ers, is declared to witness our adoption. Kow 
the honest, intelligent Campbellite, with this, 
and numerous corroborating passages before 
him, can sneer at this kind cf evidence, and as- 
sert that he has in his baptism an evidence of 
his pardon that would be taken in any court of 
justice, forms a problem we are not able to 
solve. 

The view we have taken of the above pas- 
sages, in connection with the spirit and letter 
of other parts of the Sacred Volume, has been 
received by most divines of eminence, from 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 109 

Luther and Calvin, down to John Wesley, and 
to the present day. Indeed we cannot see how 
any man with proper views of the Scriptures, 
of protestantism, and of experimental and prac- 
tical religion, can question the doctrine of aS" 
surance, by the witness of the Spirit. We are 
aware, however, that some difference of opin- 
ion has obtained among evangelical divines, re- 
lative to the method of arriving at this assur- 
ance ; some having concluded that we obtain it 
by inference, others, by the direct testimony 
of the Holy Spirit to the mind. But this dif- 
ference exists in appearance, more than in real- 
ity ; neither of the opinions militates against 
the doctrine itself, and when carried out, they 
result substantially, in the same conclusion. 
Those who contend for the direct testimony 
of the Spirit, include the corroborating evidence 
of inference ; and those v/ho plead for the in- 
ferential testimony^) reasoning from effect to 
cause, cannot but admit the direct witness of 
the Spirit. None of the divines of this latter 
class conceive a bare' reformation of conduct to 
be sufficient ground for the inference that we 
are justified ; they all contend for a change of 
heart, concomitant with justification, for a re- 
newal of mind, and the existence of the hallow- 
ed affections of love, peace and joy ; and that 
this change, in all its parts, is effected by the 
direct agency of the Holy Spirit. We there- 
fore conclude, that so far as our present inquiry 
is concerned, there is no essential difference 
between the two opinions ; each involves the 
^ K 



110 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

witness of the Spirit ; and hence we repeat, that 
the leading divines of the reformed churches, 
have ever considered the Scriptures as teaching, 
that the believer is assured by the Spirit of God, 
of his adoption. And shall we reject the con- 
curring opinions of so many great and good men 
of different ages and sects, founded upon the 
principles and declarations of the New Testa- 
ment, for the ipse dixit of the self-styled Re- 
former of Bethany ? Shall we at his command, 
surrender the witness of the Spirit, as taught 
in the Scriptures, for the soul-destroying, papal 
notion of baptismal regeneration and adoption ? 
God forbid. 

The believer's evidence of his pardon is still 
before us. The conclusion at which we arrived, 
though evidently taught by the letter of the tes- 
timony of God, and commonly received among 
christians, is rejected by the Campbellite, upon 
the ground, that to expect a knowledge of the 
forgiveness of sins by the witness of the Spirit, 
subjects us to the charge of mysticism and en- 
thusiasm. If by this we are to understand that 
the mode of operation by which the Divine 
Spirit communicates this knowledge to our 
spirits, is mysterious and incomprehensible, we 
plead guilty, and take shelter behind the Savior, 
who, in his conversation with Nicodemus, il- 
lustrated this subject, by alluding to the myste- 
rious operation of the wind ; but if this is in- 
tended to brand us with trusting io feelings and 
impressions, unauthorised by the Word of God, 
or with relying upon an evidence that, frgm its 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. Ill 

mysterious nature, is uncertain and unsatisfac- 
tory to him who has it, we deny the charge, and 
stand prepared to detect its fallacy. 

" But how do you know," says the Camp- 
bellite, *' that the Spirit which persuades you 
that you are a child of God, is not the spirit of 
the devil ?" To this question, Mr. Wesley has 
furnished an appropriate answer. " Even by 
the testimony of my own spirit, ' by the answer 
of a good conscience toward God.' Hereby 
you may know that you are in no delusion, that 
you have not deceived your own soul. The 
immediate fruits of the Spirit, ruling in the 
heart, are love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, 
humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, 
long-suffering. And the outward fruits are, the 
doing good to all men, and a uniform obedience 
to all the commands of God." Thus, the cor- 
roborating testimony of our own spirit, with 
which the Spirit of God bears witness, proves 
that the Spirit which assures us of our adoption, 
is the ''good Spirit," for he alone can fill the 
heart with love to God, peace in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, diiidjoy in the Holy Ghost ; and hence, 
we have two witnesses to the same fact, produ- 
cing a consciousness of pardon, v/hich, to the in- 
dividual himself, is the strongest kind of evidence. 
"But in this," continues the objector, "you 
make your feelings the evidence of your pardon ; 
and they are too fluctuating, and under the 
influence of too. many external circumstances, 
to be a safe criterion." It is admitted, that we 
do, in part, resort to our feelings to determine 



112 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

this matter ; and we expect to do so as long as 
we can find such respectable authority as the 
infallible oracles of God to justify us. No man 
on Scriptural principles, nor even the Camp- 
bellite on his own unscriptural principles, can 
persuade himself of the remission of his sins, 
without recourse to his feelings ; for after all his 
parade about immersion, as being evidence of 
pardon, that would be received by any judge or 
jury, he does not pretend that it will be of any 
avail, unless received in faith. But how does 
he know that he has faith, but by his feelings, 
his consciousness ? It is thus seen, that a resort 
to our feelings is unavoidable, even on Mr. 
Campbell's scheme. Still he professes to discard 
this kind of evidence, and his followers are ever 
ready to make themselves merry at the expense 
of those who receive it ; we therefore repeat, 
that no man can have an assurance that God has 
pardoned him, without appealing to his feelings. 
If the Scriptures do not bring us to this conclu- 
sion, and warrant such an appeal, they teach 
nothing, they prove nothing. " We know," 
says St. John, *' that we have passed from death 
unto life, because we love the brethren." Can 
love exist where there is no feeling? Are not 
our feelings the only means by which we become 
conscious of its existence ? Again, Sf. Paul says, 
that " the kingdom of God is righteousness, and 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Can the 
'* peace of God" abide in us, and we remain 
unconscious of it? Can we have "joy in the 
Holy Ghost," and be destitute of feeling? Car- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 113 

tainly not. Joy cannot exist in the absence of 
feeling. And as the kingdom of God consists 
of " peace and joy," it follows that the religion 
of Christ manifests itself to our feelings ; and 
hence, if our opponents have discovered a reli- 
gion, or a kingdom, from which these holy af- 
fections are excluded, it is a misnomer to call 
it the religion of the Bible, or the kingdom of 
God. They may, as suits their fancy, call it 
the religion of A. Campbell, or the kingdom of 
water, and locate it on some island ; we shall 
neither give it a "local habitation nor a name," 
but rest content with entreating them not to insult 
the Majesty of heaven, so far as to call a thing by 
his name, which is directly opposed to his Word. 
It is admitted that our feelings could not be 
relied upon in determining this matter, if we 
had no authority to appeal to them, and no 
standard to try them by. But the Scriptures 
furnish both the authority and the standard. 
The fruits of the Spirit, mentioned by the 
apostle, are, " love, joy, peace, gentleness, good- 
ness, meekness, faith, temperance." Among 
the fruits here enumerated, we find affections, 
as well as principles and morals ; love^ joy and 
peace, as well as gentleness, goodness, and 
temperance. And while the latter are mani- 
fested to others in our conduct, the former are 
made known to ourselves in our feelings. To 
be more definite. The question at issue is, 
" Am I a child of God ?" The Scriptures pro- 
nounce, ** as many as are led by the Spirit of 
God," to be " the sons of God." My next in- 

k2 



114 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

quiry then is, " Have I the Spirit of God ?" 
To determine this, I examine for the "fruits of 
the Spirit," as pointed out in the Scriptures, 
and find among them, " love, joy, and peace." 
My next object, is, to determine whether I have 
these affections ; and in order to this, I must 
have recourse to my feehngs ; for by them alone 
can I decide. They tell me that I '* love the 
brethren," have "peace with God," and possess 
"joy in the Holy Ghost;" and the Bible tells 
me that this love, peace, and joy, are the fruits 
of the Spirit's agency, as the Comforter, the 
Spirit of adoption, and that they spring alone 
from that source. Thus it is clear, that irre- 
spective of my feelings, I can have no knowl- 
edge of the forgiveness of sins ; and that they, 
when brought to the standard of Scripture, fur- 
nish the most conclusive evidence, that the 
Spirit which bears witness with my spirit, is 
the " Spirit of God." Any evidence short of 
this, whether predicated upon immersion or 
confession, the Scriptures do not sanction. 
Thsit peace of which we are insensible, cannot 
be possessed ; love and joy unknown to our 
feelings, can have no existence. 

And yet every Campbellite is taught not only 
to reject, but to ridicule the idea of a feeling 
sense of the pardoning love of God by the wit- 
ness of the Spirit, It is one of their most 
popular topics, one on which they seem to dwell 
with great delight. In ridiculing those who 
rely on this kind of evidence, and in setting 
forth the excellency of their immersion evi- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 115 

dence, some of their leaders have reiterated the 
following strains, till they have grown familiar to 
most of their hearers. *' He who relies on his 
baptism as evidence, can never doubt ; his par- 
don is as sure as the tnith of God. But how 
different the situation of the bewildered enthu- 
siast, who talks about his feelings ? He is like 
a criminal under sentence of death, chained and 
imprisoned, who concludes himself at liberty, 
and free from danger, because his feelings tell 
him so. But what good will his feelings do 
him ? They will neither retard the day of death, 
nor procure him a reprieve. And just so with 
the unimmersed. He may imagine himself 
pardoned ; his feelings may tell him he is safe ; 
but it is all delusion." Upon this choice mor- 
sel of Campbellite preaching, we observe, 1, The 
illustration is inadmissible, because it supposes 
a case that can never happen. No man of sound 
mind could feel himself free and safe, while in 
prison under sentence of death; and, 2. The 
case to which the illustration is applied, is not 
fairly stated. He who has the witness of the 
Spirit does not imagine himself pardoned ; he 
is assured of it by the only evidence whijeh the 
Scriptures have authorized him to receive. As 
" it is God that justifieth," the justification of 
the sinner is at first known only to God ; but 
in mercy to the troubled soul, he sends the 
Spirit into his heart, communicating feelings of 
'« love, and joy, and peace," and thus assuring 
him that God is reconciled. This may be fur- 
ther illustrated. You are angry with your 



116 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 

neighbor ; you know it by your feelings. Ex- 
planation follows, and your anger subsides ; 
you are immediately conscious of it, your feel- 
ings testify that your anger is gone. Apply 
this to the case before us. Convinced by the 
Word and Spirit of God, the sinner feels the 
enmity and wickedness of his heart, becomes 
conscious of his danger, and flies by repentance 
and faith, pleading the merits of the Savior, 
that he may obtain forgiveness. He believes 
with all his heart, and his pardon is sealed. 
Jesus speaks, " Son, thy sins are forgiven," 
and sends the Spirit ta communicate the joyful 
intelligence to the spirit of the penitent ; and the 
consequence is, he becomes conscious that 
" old things have passed away, and all things 
become new." 

Nor does this evidence, from its nature, leave 
him in doubt or uncertainty. It is, indeed, the 
most satisfactory evidence we can have on such 
a subject. The nature of the subject does not 
admit of mathematical demonstration, but it ad- 
mits of proof equally satisfactory to our own 
minds, and this we have in the consciousness 
produced by the witness of the Spirit. The 
strongest evidence we can have of a diseased 
body, is a consciousness of pain ; and the most 
conclusive testimony we can have of our fellow- 
ship with God, is that consciousness of the fact, 
which results from the w^itness of the Spirit, 
upon comparing our feelings and experience 
with the standard of Scripture. And this wit- 
ness, though denounced by the Campbellite as 



CAMFBELLISM EXPOSED. 117 

being metaphysical and nonsensical, is in its 
nature so simple and plain, that the *' way- 
faring man, though a fool, need not err." He 
who has it may be ignorant of the laws and 
operations of mind, and not able to reason logi- 
cally or philosophically upon any subject, con- 
sequently, sophistry may silence him, but it 
will never be able to shake his faith, while con- 
scious of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 
While the formalist endeavors to "hope against 
hope," that he has *'ahope," and the Camp- 
bellite vainly strives to predicate an assurance 
of pardon upon his baptism, the man who pos- 
sesses the witness of the Spirit has an evidence 
entirely satisfactory, and one which comes 
within the grasp of the most ordinary capacity. 
Not long since, a native African, whose hu- 
mility and piety are proverbial where he is 
known, observed to a minister, that he was 
baptized in Africa, and that he loved God in 
Africa. The minister inquired, "how do you 
know you love God ? Do you infer this from 
your baptism ? The reply was, " O no ! Me 
know me love God. Me feel me love God." 
We do not mention this to prove the truth of 
our doctrine, but to illustrate the nature and 
character of that evidence, which God has 
given to establish our adoption, and impart 
substantial peace and comfort to the mind ; an 
evidence so simple, and yet so comprehensive, 
that while it meets the case of the ignorant 
savage, it is equally adapted to the soaring in- 
tellect of a Newton, a Locke, or a Bacon. 



118 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

From the whole, we feel satisfied with the 
doctrine of assurance, as taught in the Scriptures, 
and received by the great and good of past ages, 
and the present day ; and if, for this, we con- 
tinue to be charged with fanaticism and enthu- 
siasm, we are in too much good company to be 
put out of countenance. The witness of the 
Spirit with our own spirit, forms the only tri- 
bunal established in the Scriptures to assure us 
of pardon. They have never authorized us to 
infer this, by referring to the time and place of 
our baptism ; but their language is, " If any man 
have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 
" As many as are led by the Spirit of God, are 
the sons of God." '' Because ye are sons, God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father." *' The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are 
the children of God." "He that believeth on 
the Son of God, hath the witness in himself." 
This host of testimony will surely be sufficient 
for the candid, unbiased reader. Let him who 
rejects it, take care lest he wrest the Scriptures 
to his own destruction. 

In taking leave of the present topic, we 
would say, that fairness and candor with our 
opponents, have been our aim, so that we are 
not conscious of having written one sentence, 
'* which dying, we would wish to blot." In 
stating their views, recourse has been had to 
the writings of Mr. Campbell, and to the teach- 
ings and practice of the accredited leaders of his 
party ; from which we learn that they consider 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 119 

immersion the " one thing needful," the means 
of obtaining pardon, and the evidence of pardon. 
From this caricature of Christianity, our feelings 
and judgments revolt. Observation upon its 
practical effects, long ago, convinced us, that it 
is deleterious to the existence of personal piety, 
and practical godliness, engendering strife, and 
pride, and vain glory. If so, it is destructive of 
souls, and every good man ought to oppose it. 
A religion that *' plays round the head, but 
comes not to the heart," an experience that 
begins in the w^ater, and ends by coming out of 
it, may answer while we are in health, but will 
fail in the hour of death. If they would baptize 
the penitent "for remission of sins," and then 
tell him to " ask," " seek," and " strive," till he 
obtains the witness of the Spirit, all would be 
well. But no, this would be too humiliating to 
the pride of man. An easier plan, one that wilt 
take with those who will not submit to so much 
humility and self-denial, must be substituted. 
And hence, seeking is pronounced unscriptural ; 
'praying for remission of sins, and for the Holy 
Spirit, is made a theme for mirth ; and striving 
"to enter in at the strait gate," (especially in 
coming to the mourner's seat,) is almost as bad 
as pagan idolatry ; and immersion is made the 
sine qua non, the indispensable every thing. 
The result of which is, that in the minds of 
many, the blood of the Redeemer, the witness 
and operations of the Spirit, the duty of prayer, 
and holiness of heart and life, are virtually 
washed away in the water. 



120 CAMPBSLLISM EXPOSED. 

• 



1 



CHAPTER IV. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

Import of the Greek word Baptizo — import of the 
phrases In Jordauj going" up out of the -water, — Bap- 
tism at JEnon — Consideration of Rom. 6. 3-6. and Col. 
2. 12 — reasons for baptism by sprinkling — those bap- 
tized on the day of Pentecost — the jailor — St. Paul — 
CorneUus — Reasons against immersion — Baptism of 
the Spirit — concluding remarks on the mode. 

In opposing Mr. Campbell's views of. the na- 
ture and design of baptism, we have said nothing 
about the mode. Our object has been to show, 
that the saving virtue he attaches to the ordi- 
nance is unscriptural, without seeming to ques- 
tion the correctness of his assumption, that im- 
mersion is indispensable to the performance of 
that ordinance. Leaving it for our readers to 
determine how far we have succeeded, we shall 
now invite their attention to a different view of 
the subject, by endeavoring to demonstrate that 
the claims he sets up for the immersed on the 
ground that they only are baptized, are about as 
modest and as well founded as those of the 
grand Turk, who assumes to be lord of the 
whole earth, while destitute of thepowerto save 
his own person from the hand of the assassin. 
That the mode of baptism has been a fruitful 
source of controversy among christians, is 
known to us and to most of our readers. Upon 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 121 

it so much has been said, and so many volumes 
written, that we have not the vanity to suppose 
we shall be able to travel an unbeaten road, or 
to claim originality for our arguments. Indeed, 
we should have said nothing on the subject, but 
for the " great swelling words" of Mr. Camp- 
bell and his followers, and the fear that our si- 
lence might be construed into a tacit acknow- 
ledgment of the justice of their assertions. To 
avoid this imputation, and with the hope of 
benefiting those who may not have time or in- 
clination to peruse works in which this subject 
is thoroughly investigated, we propose to take 
a brief survey of the ground of the ultra immer- 
sionist, and offer some reasons for dissenting 
from his conclusions. 

The first argument commonly resorted to in 
support of immersion, and in opposition to 
every other mode, is predicated on the meaning 
of the original word. And here it is well 
known, that Mr. Campbell has assumed the re- 
sponsibility of settling the question, by the sum- 
mary method of translating the term in accord- 
ance with his own notions. In his garbled and 
deformed Testament, palmed upon the public 
as the production of Dr. Doddridge, and others, 
BAPTO, and its derivatives are uniformly trans- 
lated in the sense of immersion ; and in justifi- 
cation of this daring procedure, he asserts in a 
note in the same book, concerning the word 
BAPTizo, that " all lexicographers translate it 
by the word immerse, dip or plunge ; not one 
by sprinkle or pour." AH this, we are aware, 
6 L 



122 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

can do no harm to the intelligent, who will be 
at the pains of examining the matter for them- 
selves, for they will at once see that the asser- 
tion is untrue, and that the translation, at least, 
is questionable ; but others who have not the 
means of detecting the fallacy of this course, 
may be deceived by it, as doubtless many have 
been. Those who are ignorant of the original, 
and of the opinions of the learned, and have 
confidence in Mr. Campbell's ability and inte- 
grity, will be naturally led by his translation 
and bold assertions, to conclude that the origi- 
nal word means immersion, and nothing else. 
But neither this conclusion nor the assertion, 
that all lexicographers have so understood it, is 
founded in truth. It may be true, that all lexi- 
cographers and all linguists, have considered 
immersion as one meaning of the original term, 
but it is not true that all, or that many of them 
have viewed it in this sense only. Parkhurst, 
says, it means " to immerse in, or wash with 
water, in token of purification from sin." Ac- 
cording to Ainsworth, " to baptize, is to wash 
any one in the sacred baptismal font, or to 
sprinkle on him the consecrated water." And 
with this opinion Ewing's Greek and English 
Lexicon, Calmet's Dictionary, and most persons 
of reputable attainments in Greek literature 
agree. With these facts before him, the reader 
will place a proper estimate upon the sayings 
and doings of him, who can deliberately aver 
that all the learned have so translated the origi- 
nal as to confine it to immersion. 



A 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 123 

Every man who has an acquaintance with the 
Greek language, sufficient to enable him to learn 
the meaning of a word by the use of a lexicon, 
may know if he will take the trouble to exam- 
ine, that BAPTizo, with its kindred terms, is so 
variously applied, that no one word, to the ex- 
clusion of all others, can explain its meaning. 
Perhaps it was originally used to express ting- 
ing or colouring ; and hence Homer, long be- 
fore the Savior appeared in the world, speaks 
of a lake being baptized with the blood of a 
frog. In this sense it was not used to designate 
the manner or mode of the process, but the act 
of coloring, or the condition of the object acted 
upon. When this term came to be applied to 
other purposes, we find the Greeks using it to 
denote all kinds of washing, and every mode of 
purifying with water, and this is the sense in 
which it is uniformly used by the New Testa- 
ment writers. Even if it were true that bapto 
means nothing but immersion, it would not fol- 
low that the New Testament term, baptizo, a 
derivative of the former, signifies the same. De- 
rivatives of this class imply less than their pri- 
mitives, and in many cases materially change 
the sense. But it is not true that bapto in all 
ins*?nces implies immersion. In the book of 
Daniel, iv, 33, we read that Nebuchadnezzar 
*'was driven from men, and did eai grass as 
oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of 
heaven." The word wet in the Greek of the 
LXX is bapto: ''His body was baptized with 
the dew of heaven." Here then, according to 



124 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

the original import of the term, a man is bapti- 
zed by the sprinkling of dew upon his body ; 
and hence, if it means the application of water 
in one mode, and only one, we have the most 
positive proof that that mode is not immersion, 
but sprinkling. But we place no reliance upon 
this in determining the manner of administer- 
ing baptism as a religious ordinance, and have 
only adduced it to show the folly of attempting 
to confine the word, in its original import, to 
immersion. 

As already remarked, baptizo and its deriva- 
tives in the New Testament, are used to denote 
all kinds of washings, also the various ceremo- 
nial purifications practiced by the Jews, some 
of which are well known to have been mere 
sprinklings. Some people seem wholly unable 
to comprehend how pouring and immersion can 
both be baptism ; but St. Paul, Heb, ix, 10, 
speaks of " divers washings" (in the original 
baptisms,) as existing among the Jews, which, 
by reference to Numbers xix, 7-19, are shown 
to have been performed both by dipping and 
sprinkling. We read, Mark vii, 4, that, the 
Pharisees held to " the washing (in the Greek, 
baptizing) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and 
of tables," or " beds" as it stands in the mar- 
gin. As all persons hold to the baptizing or 
washing of such utensils for the purpose of 
cleansing them, it is quite probable from the 
nature of the charge, that the practice of the 
Pharisees originated in superstitious notions of 
purification ; but be this as it may, it is certain 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 125 

that these things were not all baptized by im- 
mersion. The '' cups and pots" may have been 
dipt 'n the water, but who can imagine this of 
their " tables or beds?" These were construct- 
ed of sufficient size to accommodate them at 
their meals, which they ate in a reclining pos- 
ture, and for from three to five persons to lie 
down upon at their ease. Surely no person 
can be so extravagant as to suppose it was the 
custom of the Pharisees, to carry these out and 
immerse them in the water before their meals, 
or on any other occasion. But the couches 
were baptized as well as the cups and pots ; 
and while it is by no means certain that the 
latter were immersed, it is quite certain that the 
former were not. 

Many other examples might be adduced, but 
these are in point, and amply sufficient to show 
that the attempt to substitute immersion for 
baptism is not authorized by the original. In» 
deed, the meanings of the original are so nume- 
rous, that nothing from thence can be proved 
concerning the primitive mode of baptism; and 
though the controversy on this ground has been 
carried on to weariness, it has been, and always 
will be pretty much in character with the poet's 
picture of the three men, who quarrelled about 
the color of the chamelion. In proof, take the 
following summary, embracing only a portion 
of the meanings of this accommodating word. 
The verb bapto with its derivatives, signifies to 
dip the hand into a dish. Matt, xxvi, 23 ; to 
stain a vesture with blood, Rev. xix, 13; to wet 
L 2 



126 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

the body with dew, Dan. iv, 33 ; to suffer and 
die, Mark x, 38; to paint or smear the face with 
colors; to stain the hand by pressing a coloring 
substance ; to pour water upon the hands ; to 
be drunken with wine ; to sprinkle with water; 
and to immerse wholly or partially in water. 
Its application in some of these cases we have 
previously shown, and are prepared to produce 
examples of its use in all the others, and many 
more, whenever it shall be necessary. A word 
then of such extensive application, affords as 
strong proof for sprinkling or pouring, as for 
immersion, and to say that the former is not 
baptism is as unjustifiable, as to say that the 
latter is not, Mr. Campbell's translations and 
assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The truth is, the term immersion, is not found 
in the Bible ; nor is there any word in the ori- 
ginal Scriptures having any connection with 
baptism, that would authorize, exclusively, the 
word immersion as its translation. We do not 
expect Campbellites, who know nothing of the 
matter, to believe this asserfion ; and some of 
them who have the means of learning its truth 
within their reach, we fear, have too much faith 
in the ipse dixit of their leader, to receive any 
thing that would cross his track, though pro- 
claimed by an angel from heaven. Many of his 
followers, so soon as they have read his New 
Testament and Millennial Harbinger, become in 
their own estimation, linguists and critics ; and 
some, while destitute even of a knowledge of 
the Greek alphabet, do not scruple to assert in 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 127 

the presence of hundreds, not only that baptizo 
means immersion, and should always be so ren- 
dered, but that it is the only word in the Greek 
langu^e that can be used in this sense. We 
do not know that Mr. Campbell has ever au- 
thorized the latter part of this assertion, but we 
do know that that, as well as the former, has 
not the authority of truth. The Greek words 
DUNO and dupto may be properly confined in 
their translation to the idea of immersion ; but 
they, so far from being used to define the mode 
of baptism, do not occur in the New Testament; 
while BAPTIZO, as already shown, cannot with 
any propriety be restricted to that meaning. 

Indeed it is doubted whether this word in 
any case, where the rite of baptism is designa- 
ted, necessarily means immersion ; because the 
various purposes to which it is applied, render 
it evident that it dojes not express the manner 
of doing a thing, whether by immersion or 
pouring, but only the thing done ; that is, wash- 
ing, or the application of water in some form 
or other. And here we have sufficient ground 
for considering baptism as valid, whether per- 
formed by affusion or immersion ; and good 
reason for rejecting any effort to translate the 
word so as to determine the mode. Should it 
ever be translated by a competent individual, 
free from sectarian bigotry and selfish partyism, 
the rendering will probably be, to wash or wet 
with water ; but this would leave the question 
of the mode, where it is at present, and where 
we believe the Almighty designed it to remain, 



128 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

to be determined by circumstances, and the 
consciences of those concerned. It has been 
seen that the rendering we here suppose is used 
in the case of Nebuchadnezzar — baptized, wet, 
with the dew of heaven — and we are confident 
it comes much nearer the original than Mr. 
Campbell's, and probably as near as any that 
could be given. For illustration : The mistress 
of a family commands her servant to wash, or 
ivet her hands, as preparatory to the discharge 
of some duty. Whether the servant immerse 
her hands, or pour water upon them, is an un- 
important circumstance — the command is obey- 
ed whenever they are brought into the condition 
required. Again, I observe, my handkerchief 
is wet* Does this language tell you whether 
it has been dipt in the water, or left in the rain? 
Certainly not. It simply declares the condition 
of the article, and makes no allusion to the 
manner of producing it. Now let the original 
term be understood in this light, and the mode 
of applying the water of baptism, so far as the 
force or meaning of the word is concerned, will 
no longer be a bone of contention among intel- 
ligent christians. Had the Savior intended to 
enjoin either immersion or affusion exclusively, 
and in all cases, it would have been easy to use 
terms that could not have been misapprehended; 
but as he chose to employ words of a different 
character and designed the adaptation of the 
institution to every climate, and to all circum- 
stances, it is reasonable to suppose he had no 
wish to make the mode of applying the water 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 129 

en important consideration. This much, at any 
rate, is certain, the force of the original language 
does not fix the mode; and consequently, any 
effort to settle this matter by a new translation, 
whether it be the offspring of ignorance or 
vanity, or originate in a desperate resolve to 
found a sect, ought to be discountenanced. 

Having shown, that the import of the word in 
the original, gives no authority for the exclusive 
immersion translation, we proceed to notice 
another class of arguments adduced in support 
of the same cause. As baptizo may be, and 
sometimes is, used in the sense of immersion, 
we readily admit that it might be so connected 
with circumstances and qualifying terms, as to 
confine its use, in a religious ordinance, to that 
sense. And as it has been contended that the 
circumstances recorded in the New Testament, 
as connected with the performance of baptism, 
are of this character, and do thus determine the 
mode, we ask the reader to accompany us while 
we inspect those cases. They are neither nu- 
merous nor difficult of examination. If they 
contain evidence of immersion, we shall soon 
find it. 

In the third chapter of Matthew we read that 
John baptized '* in Jordan ;" and this has, by 
some, been thought to be conclusive proof that 
he immersed. But it is more likely, that " in," 
is here used to denote the place where he bap- 
tized, or the water with which he administered, 
than to point out the manner or modes of the 
ordinance. The same Greek word here ren- 
6* 



130 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

dered in, is translated '* «^" in more than one 
hundred places in the New Testament, and 
" with'^'' in a hundred and fifty others.* There- 
fore, in this passage it may only mean, that 
John baptized at Jordan, or ivith the water of 
Jordan. 

Further evidence is claimed from the same 
chapter, in the declaration that Jesus when he 
was baptized " went up out of the water." 
But it is easy to show that this, so far from 
proving immersion in his case, does not even 
prove that he was in the water. Apo, the ori- 
ginal word here rendered "out of," frequently 
means from, and is so translated in this chap- 
ter. John says to those who came to him, 
"who hath warned you to flee (apo) from the 
wrath to come." This translation is here un- 
questionably correct ; for as the '* wrath" spo- 
ken of had not then come, they were not in it, 
and consequently could not flee "out of" it. 
But it was coming, therefore they could flee 
from it. In this case, then, it is clear that apo 
means from ; and in the other case we do no 
violence to the word, or to any thing in the con- 
text, by reading that " Jesus when he was bap- 
tized, went up from the water." And as he 
could do this without so much as wetting his 
feet, it furnishes no evidence that he was im- 
mersed. 

Another case of very common resort, and of 

• See Watson's and Martindale's Dictionaries on the 
word baptize. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 131 

much reliance, is the baptism of the eunuch, 
mentioned Acts, viii ; where it is said, " they 
went down both into the water, both Philip and 
the eunuch, and he baptized him." This going 
down into the water is supposed to be positive 
proof that the Ethiopian eunuch was immersed. 
But when it is known that the preposition here 
rendered '' into," often means only /o, or unto, 
and is so translated in the Scriptures, every can- 
did person will at once see, that the passage 
proves nothing to the pomt. 

We pause here to notice the very disingenu- 
ous manner by which Mr. Campbell, and others 
before him, have endeavored to escape this dif- 
ficulty relative to the original word just advert- 
ed to. They tell us if eis signifies to, that the 
righteous will get to heaven, but not into it. 
This miserable evasion will be properly appre- 
ciated by those who are aware that the pedo- 
baptists have not contended that the original 
should never be rendered " into." All that we 
insist upon is, that it means to, as well as into. 
And he who denies this, is either too ignorant, 
or too reckless of truth, to merit even a passing 
notice as a controversialist. 

Great stress has been placed upon the phrases, 
" in Jordan," " into the water," and " out of 
the water," in this controversy ; and some have 
even supposed that the man who can read them, 
and not be converted to the immersion theory, 
is either dishonest, or destitute of a mind for 
the investigation of such subjects. But while 
we know that the original terms, are so trans- 



133 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

lated in other passages, as to authorize us in 
these to read, '*Johu baptized at Jordan," 
** Jesus went up from the water," " both Philip 
and the eunuch went down to the water," we 
shall continue to believe, and to assert, that 
there is here no more proof of immersion, than 
of sprinkling or pouring. 

But to waive all this, and to take these pas- 
sages just as they stand, and allow them all 
the force to which they are entitled, either in 
classical or ordinary use, and what do they 
prove ? Certainly not that John immersed the 
Savior, or that Philip immersed the eunuch. 
But they do prove that there is no proof of im- 
mersion in either case. In the case of the eunuch, 
the going '' down into the water," is often re- 
ferred to as evidence that he was immersed— 
as incontrovertible proof of the fact ; and yet 
that very passage demonstrates that going " down 
into the water," and being baptized are different 
things ; for, after they had gone down, it is ad- 
ded that *' Philip baptized him." Therefore, as 
these things are separate, and the going down 
into the water, was previous to the baptism, it 
follows that the preposition " into," gives no 
information as to the mode of his baptism. 

Previous impressions are often a great diffi- 
culty to our arriving at the truth ; hence it is a 
settled principle in jurisprudence that the man 
who has prejudged the case, is incompetent to 
try the accused. Many who are sincere inquirers 
after truth, are convinced before they have at- 
tended to the evidence, that baptism and plung- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 133 

ing are inseparable, and consequently, however 
disposed, they are not prepared to give the case 
an impartial hearing. This deep-rooted impres- 
sion is probably the effect of the circumstance, 
that the largest and most respectable denomina- 
tion among the sects that practice immersion 
exclusively, is known by the name Baptist. 
This circumstance, seeing those who are called 
Baptists, uniformly putting their converts under 
the water, has a natural tendency to produce 
upon the minds of the multitude, the impres- 
sion that to baptize means to immerse. With 
this notion they read the passages we have been 
considering, and are satisfied, not by any evi- 
dence they contain as to the mode, but because 
they find in them nothing to contradict their 
previous views. Now, could they divest them- 
selves of the preconceived and erroneous opin- 
ion, that to baptize necessarily means to im- 
merse ; and understand it in its more proper 
signification, to wash, or to wet with water ^ 
every candid inquirer, would at once see that 
these passages contain not one particle of evi- 
dence that dipping was the primitive mode of 
baptism. It is true we may go down into the 
water and then be dipt under it ; but it is equal- 
ly true, that we may go down irito the water, 
be baptized by pouring, or sprinkling, and then 
come up out of the water, and all without hav- 
ing been immersed ankle deep. 

What we have said, with regard to the phra- 
ses " into" and '' out of the water," we consider 
so plain and conclusive that no unbiased mind 

M 



134 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

can fail to admit that they do not sustain the 
immersion cause ; but they are so commonly 
adduced in its support, and considered of such 
force and virtue in the controversy, that we offer 
an additional remark. The common use of 
these phrases, in the every day occurrences of 
life, shows the absurdity of supposing them to 
prDve immersion. From many examples that 
might be given, we select the following : The 
mother accuses her child of having been in the 
water, when she only means that it has been at 
or hy the Water, wetting its hands or its clothes ; 
and again, we hear her say, " Come out of that 
water." But this command never leads us to 
suppose that the child is under the water ; we 
know she only intends to call it away from it. 
It is thus seen, that the common application of 
these term^ conveys no idea of immersion ; and 
why such an iHea should be attached to them, 
when used by the sacred writers, is more than 
we can comprehend, and a procedure for which 
we have never seen a sufficient reason. Indeed, 
one of the passages from which the preposition 
'* into" is urought to prove a case of immersion, 
makes it clear that it proves nothing. We read, 
'' they went down both into the water, both 
Philip and the eunuch." Now, if into means 
under, with regard to the eunuch, it can imply 
nothing less of Philip ; for it is applied equally 
to both. But neither Campbellites nor Baptists 
will admit that the latter was immersed ; and 
in this they concede that the passage contains 



\ 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 135 

no evidence of the immersion of the farmer ; 
which is all we contend for. 

The next proof resorted to in favor of im- 
mersion, is John, iii, 23, where it is stated that 
*'John also was baptizing in JEnon, near to 
Salim, because there was much water there.'' 
This is one of the immersionist's strong holds. 
He can see no reason why John should baptize 
where there was much water, or why he should 
convene the multitudes at Jordan, except for 
the purpose of plunging his converts. But the 
truth is, we shall find no difficulty in assigning 
a plausible and sufficient reason, without sup- 
posing immersion in either case. In Judea, it 
is a well known fact, that springs were rare, 
and water scarce. That which was needed for 
domestic purposes, had daily to be brought from 
the nearest rivers and fountains, in pitchers, by 
the women ; which rendered the supply scanty, 
and entirely insufficient to quench the thirst of a 
multitude. John's preaching roused the country. 
The inhabitants of "Jerusalem and Judea, and 
all the region round about Jordan," came to his 
baptism. Where could such multitudes as- 
semble ? Certainly not in a house, for no house 
would contain them. They must, then, resort 
to the fields or woods ; and as they would need 
water, ^ot only for baptism, even if administer- 
ed by aspersion, but for the purpose of drinking, 
it was natural for them to assemble in the neigh- 
borhood of some river or fountain. This is ex- 
emplified in the location of our camp meetings, 
and other large popular meetings of the present 



136 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

day. Though they are not designed for immer- 
sion, nor especially for baptism by any other 
mode, it is found necessary to select a situation 
contiguous to " much water," and after all, we 
sometimes find numbers there suffering for want 
of it. In this view of the subject, we see a 
good reason, and very probably the true one, 
why John baptized in ^non, and at Jordan. 
They were the most convenient places, in view 
of the wants of the multitudes, either with or 
without reference to baptism, and whether the 
mode of that ordinance was sprinkling or other- 
wise. But be this as it may, the conclusion 
drawn from this passage in favor of immersion, 
is an unauthorized assumption — amere supposi- 
tion ; and a thousand such suppositions do not 
prove one truth. The '* much water" of iEnon, 
never has proved, nor can it ever prove that one 
of John's disciples was immersed in it ; or that 
there was there a stream or fountain of water 
of sufficient depth to admit the immersion of 
even the child. We are aware that immer- 
sionists have magnitied ^Enon into a place of 
''great waters;" but unfortunately for their cause, 
no such powerful stream, or fountain fit for the 
plunging of multitudes, is described in the geo- 
graphy of the country, or has ever been dis- 
covered by travelers. The supposition of the 
existence of such a reason is as gratuitous, as 
the proof of immersion from the passage is 
impossible. 

We find then, that this instance, as well as 
those previously examined, entirely fails to serve 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 137 

the cause of immersion. And these, as to the 
historical evidence of the New Testament, are 
the main dependence of that cause. In reality, 
they are the only passages in which the said 
history seems to make any approach to immer- 
sion. John's baptizing in Jordan, and in ^non, 
and the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, are 
the only circumstances mentioned in the New 
Testament, of the performance of baptism at a 
river or fountain of water ; they are, therefore, 
the only cases that present any thing like the 
appearance of immersion; and no sooner are they 
brought to the test of fair criticism, and sober 
investigation, than even this appearance is en- 
tirely dissipated. Where, then, are the facts to 
justify Mr. Campbell's translation, or his as- 
sertion, that in the days of the apostles, '* no 
person was said to be converted to God, until 
he v/as buried in, and raised out of the water ?" 
It is certain they are not found in the Scriptures ; 
and hence, this assertion is worth no more than 
one that should wholly contradict it. Neither 
Mr. Campbell, nor any one else, can produce 
one clear case of immersion among all the per- 
sons baptized, from the beginning of John's 
baptism, to the close of the apocalypse. 

We have now gone through an examination 
of the facts recorded in the New Testament 
history of baptism. And so far from sustaining 
the immersion theory, we found them utterly 
fail to prove the immersion of a single individ- 
ual. It remains for us now to examine the 
supposed doctrinal allusions, found in i?am., vi. 

m2 



138 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

and Coh ii, where we are said to be buried 
with Christ, " by baptism," and'* in baptism." 
These passages, it is true, record no fact of 
the baptism of any individual ; nor does it ap- 
pear from the context, that the apostle in wri- 
ting them was giving any directions concerning 
the mode of baptism ; but still, as our oppo- 
nents assume that allusion is made to the ordi- 
nance, and insist that the " burial" mentioned, 
is unquestionable proof that baptism implies a 
burial in water, our inquiry v/ould be incomplete 
without them. Now, if we shall find upon in- 
vestigation that these passages have no refer- 
ence to water baptism, and that they are whol- 
ly misapplied when brought into this contro- 
versy, the possibility of proving immersion from 
the Scriptures will be rendered entirely hope- 
less. 

We notice first the passage from i?o marts, vi. 
3 — 6: " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
into his death 1 Therefore, we are buried with 
him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life. For if we have been planted to- 
gether in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection: 'Knowing 
this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin." In a few 
remarks upon this paragraph, we hope to be 
able to satisfy the unprejudiced reader that ev- 



( 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 139 

ery argument drawn from it in favor of immer- 
sion is inapplicable, and only proves the weak- 
ness of the cause it is called up to sustain. The 
most ordinary reader will discover that the 
above passage, in some respects, is highly fig- 
urative. The apostle had just established, by 
unanswerable arguments, a fundamental princi- 
ple of the christian religion — the justificatiDn 
of the sinner by faith alone; and he is now 
proving that this doctrine gives no license for 
committing sin, and cannot lead to licentious- 
ness of life. Hence, he anticipates the legalist, 
whether Jew or Campbell ite, objecting to the 
doctrine of justification " by faith, without 
works," on the ground that if it be true, we 
may go on to sin, and the more we sin, the 
more the grace of God will be manifested in 
our forgiveness. In view of this objection, he 
asks the question, '' Shall we continue in sin 
that grace may abound ?" and then emphatical- 
ly answers, " God forbid ; how shall we that 
are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" 
Now, the reason the apostle here gives why 
true believers cannot continue in sin, is, that 
they " are dead to sin." This death is un- 
questionably to be understood figuratively, for 
none will suppose him to mean the extinction 
of natural life ; and having mentioned, in this 
sense, our being " dead to sin," he proceeds, 
in the same figurative strain, to speak of a bur- 
ial^ and a resurrection. Nor is this all, for 
enlarging the figure in the 5th and 6th verses, 
he represents us as being ^^planted^^ and '^cru- 



140 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

cijied with him, that the body of sin might be 
destroyed ;" and this planting and crucitixion, 
are effected by baptism, just as the burial is. 
These latter verses are so inseparably connec- 
ted with the former, that the sense of the par- 
ragraph is incomplete without them. Why 
then do not the advocates for immersion, in 
quoting the passage, go forward to these, and 
show us a resemblance, not only between bap- 
tism by immersion, and the burial of Christ, but 
also between immersion, and being " planted 
and cruciiied" with Christ ? There is, indeed, 
no resemblance between a dip, or plunge in the 
water, and the burial of Christ in the sepulchre ; 
and hence some intelligent Baptist writers, 
among whom are Mr. Robinson, the historian, 
and the Rev. Mr. Judson, missionary in the 
East Indies, have conceded from the entire lack 
of similarity in the two cases, that this text 
proves nothing concerning water baptism. But 
if it were otherwise, and the resemblance be- 
tween an immersion in water, and the mode of 
the Savior's burial was obvious to all, before 
this passage can be made to bear on the mode 
of administering baptism, a similar resemblance 
must be found between immersion and the plant- 
ing of trees, and between immersion and the 
crucifixion of our Savior ; for all these are rep- 
resented as being accomplished by baptism. 

But no such resemblance can be shown ; it 
is, therefore, vain to predicate an argument up- 
on this passage in favor of immersion. 

To make the subject more clear, let it be ob- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 141 

served that the text before us represents four 
things as being done to and for believers *' by- 
baptism," viz. they are said to be planted, cru- 
cified, dead, and buried. The immersionist, 
seizing upon the latter in support of his theory, 
insists that the burial is to be understood in a 
literal sense ; and hence concludes that baptism 
necessarily implies immersion. But neither the 
planting, the crucifixion, nor the death, v^hich 
we are said to experience, can be taken in this 
literal sense. No man v^^ho has not taken leave 
of his w^its, will for a moment imagine that the 
believer is literally planted in the earth, or that 
he dies by crucifixion, as did the Savior. It 
will be universally conceded that these are to 
be understood figuratively. The case, then, 
resolves itself into this; oi four things, inse- 
parably connected by the apostle, and perform- 
ed by the same agent, upon the same individu- 
al, and at the same time, three are clearly and 
manifestly spoken by way of figure, and can 
only be accomplished in a spiritual manner. 
And hence, it is certainly reasonable to suppose 
that the other is subject to the same interpre- 
tation. He who refuses to admit this, and still 
contends that the burial must imply a literal 
burial of the body in water, outrages fair crit- 
icism and'common sense, and recklessly fights 
with the fearful odds of three to one against 
him. 

The absurdity of the idea that the burial here 
mentioned signifies immersion, appears further, 
from the consideration that every burial implies 



142 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

three things ; namely, an agent, an action, and 
an object acted upon ; but on the present sup- 
position we find in this case but two of these 
things, the agent and the action being the same, 
and making but one. Baptism we are told is 
a burial, and yet the apostle says we are " bu- 
ried by baptism." Hence, the burial, which 
is the action performed, becomes the agent by 
which it is performed ; and thus the advocates 
of this view of the subject ate involved in the 
nonsense of saying, " we are buried by a hu- 
riaV 

? Should what we have said fail to convince 
the reader that this passage cannot be made to 
subserve the cause of immersion, we have 
another thought to present. The literal reading 
of the text, without a word of comment, is 
sufficient to confute the idea our opponents at- 
tach to it. They assume that baptism is an im- 
mersion in water : and hence conclude the bu- 
rial in the text to be water baptism. But in- 
stead of sanctioning this, the apostle wholly 
excludes water from the subject, by declaring 
the burial to be made in something of an en- 
tirely different nature. ** Therefore, we are 
buried with him by baptism into death." 
Now, if he had said, **we are buried into the 
water," there could be no controversy on the 
subject, all would at once perceive the correct- 
ness of the immersionist's theory. But since 
this is not the case, and finding it written that 
"we are buried," not in the water, but '' into 
de?ith," can any clear-headed, unbiased man. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 143 

imagine this passage to afford any countenance 
to immersion ? We think not. For however 
hard St. Paul may be to be understood, he cer- 
tainly did not write " deatN'' when he meant 
water. 

It is now obvious that this important text 
cannot be explained by an imaginary resem- 
blance between immersion and the burial of 
Christ ; for no such resemblance exists, and this 
interpretation involves difficulties and absurdities 
of the most glaring and inexplicable nature. But 
what then shall we conclude ? That its mean- 
ing is incomprehensible ? Certainly not. For" 
though the language is figurative, the meaning 
is plain, and the interpretation sure. Let it be 
first, remarked, that the baptism mentioned in 
the text, is that by which believers are initia- 
ted into Christ, and become new creatures: 
" Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into 
his death ?" It is clear then, that the baptism 
by which we are said to be buried, is that 
which puts us in Christ. And, now, we have only 
to ascertain what this is, and every difiiculty 
will be removed. And fortunately, the apostle 
on this point, in another part of his writings, 
fully explains himself. In 1 Cor. xii. 13, we 
read ; "By one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one bodyy The body here mentioned, is evi- 
dently Christ, or rather his mystical body — the 
church, of which he is the head. He is the 
vine — we are the branches. But we are here 
taught, that it is not by the baptism of water, 



144 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

but by that of the Spirit, that we are properly 
initiated into this body, and put on Christ. The 
whole passage is now clear. The baptism 
which? the apostle connects with a burial, is that 
which places us in Christ; but it is ''by one 
Spirif^ that we are baptized into him ; therefore, 
the baptism mentioned, is the baptism of the 
Spirit, producing a deuth and burial to sin, and 
a resurrection to newness of life. 

It only remains for us to notice a parallel 
text in CoL ii. 12 : " Buried with him in bap- 
tism, wherein also you are risen with him, 
through the faith of the operation of God, who 
hath raised him from the dead." The para- 
graph from which this is taken, is similar to the 
one we have just considered, and requires the 
same method of interpretation. In the preced- 
ing verse the apostle had mentioned the mysti- 
cal death of christians, by the phrase, " putting 
off the body of the sins af the flesh ;" then, as 
in his epistle to the Romans, he adds our mys- 
tical burial with Christ, and also our rising 
again with him. But this death is figuratively 
to be understood ; and hence the burial and 
resurrection must be taken in the same sense. 

On this passage we offer one additional re- 
mark, which cuts up, root and branch, the no- 
tion that it contains any allusion to a literal bu- 
rial in water. The immersionist who contends 
for a literal burial, contends also for a literal 
resurrection, and in both cases, the agent is the 
baptizer. By his arm alone the subject is put 
under the water, and by the same means is he 



A 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 145 

raised from it. But the resurrectio7% mention- 
ed by the apostle, is performed by faith, 
*' Wherein, also, ye are risen with him, through 
the FAITH of the operation of God,^- The 
Campbellite, then, understanding the Scriptures 
as always meaning what they say, and taking 
the burial here to be immersion, may with 
consistency put the subject under water, but 
further he cannot go. He must leave him there 
to be raised by faith, or to remain immersed 
till the resurrection of the last day. 

Such is the revolting absurdity of the assump- 
tion we oppose, that its practical effects would 
result in the drowning of every individual bap- 
tized. Let its advocates act consistently, ,and 
carry it out in practice, and their converts, like 
angel's visits, will be " few and far between,'' 
But all these difficulties and absurdities are dis- 
sipated, when we take a proper view of the sub- 
ject, and understand it to signify a death and 
burial to sin, and a resurrection to the enjoy- 
ment of spiritual life, not performed by water ^ 
but by the Holy Spirit, 

And now, reader, we have given you the whole 
of those plain facts and Scripture assertions, 
upon which the ultra immersionist relies to sus- 
tain his doctrine. If the passages we have ex-' 
amined do not prove immersion, it cannot be 
proved from the Scriptures. And where is the 
evidence in these ? Is it in the fact that John 
baptized in Jordan ? No. For this he might 
have done by pouring, as well as by immersion* 
Is it found in the '*much water" of ^non? 
7 N 



146 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

No. For the multitudes would have needed 
much water, though not one of them had been 
baptized. Nor do we find it in the declaration 
that " both Philip and the eunuch went down 
into the water." For this involves the absur- 
dity of supposing Philip also to have been im- 
mersed. Nor yet do we find it in the words, 
" buried with him by baptism into death ;" be- 
cause death is not ivater. Nor in the passage 
from Colossians ; for if that implies a burial in 
water, nothing but a miracle could save every 
baptized person from being drowned. But the 
search becomes hopeless. Not one of these 
passages, nor all of them together, affords any 
proof that immersion was the primitive mode 
of baptism ; nor does the New Testament give 
usrany warrant to conclude, with certainty, that 
the apostles, or John the Baptist, ever immers- 
ed one of their converts. 

In prosecuting this subjfect, we have now ar- 
rived at the point where it seems expedient to 
notice the other side of the question. Our in- 
qfuiry in the preceding numbers, has been for 
proofs in favor of immersion. But after hav- 
ing traveled over all the ground, and examined 
with candor and impartiality, every passage in 
the New Testament that seems to have a favor- 
able bearing on that view of the subject, to- 
gether with the original meaning of the word, 
we find the question still involved in doubt and 
uncertainty. Not one ray of light has been 
discovered to offer a gleam of hope that the 
immersionist will ever be able to demonstrate 






CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 147 

his system to accord with the practice of the 
apostles and primitive christians. If such was 
their practice, the Holy Spirit has left us in the 
dark — the Scriptures make no mention of the 
fact. This being the case, we turn to the oth- 
er side, and offer some reasons why we believe 
in and practice a different mode. 

In the remaining cases of the administration 
of baptism, mentioned in the New Testament, 
we have, at least, some strong presumptions 
against the doctrine that immersion was the 
primitive practice. The first persons baptized 
after the apostles received their commission to 
teach and disciple the nations, were the three 
thousand upon the day of Pentecost. It was 
the third, or according to our method of com- 
putation, the ninth hour of the day, when.|Pe- 
ter began to preach ; and after he had preached, 
and heard the cry of the convicted multitude, 
and responded to th«ir inquiry, he then exhorted 
them '' with many other words." Now, all 
this probably brought twelve or one o'clock ; 
and during the five or six hours that remained 
of the day, three thousand persons were bap- 
tized by twelve men, making two hundred and 
fifty to each. To suppose that one man, in so 
short a time, could go through the ordinary 
forms, and immerse this number of persons, is 
to suppose a moral, and we believe, a physical 
impossibility. To avoid ibis insuperable diffi- 
culty, some have imagined that the seventy dis- 
ciples were present, and took part in the work 
of baptizing ; and in addition to this, the Camp- 



148 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

bellite would tell us that the converts them- 
selves, so soon as they were baptized, were 
prepared to become baptizers, and thus to re- 
lieve the apostles of their burden. But we 
might fancy fifty other things on as good au- 
thority, and with as much probability as either 
of these. The account mentions Peter and 
'* the eleven," but says not one word about the 
seventy ; and as to the notion that every man 
who is initiated into the church by baptism, is 
authorized to administer the ordinance, it has, 
like most of the other peculiarities of Camp- 
bellism, no more countenance in the Word of 
God, than the flimsy impostures of Joe Smith, 
or the idolatrous pretensions of Ann Lee. We 
have, then, no reason to believe that any but 
the twelve were employed in baptizing on that 
occasion. But they could not have gone in 
search of water and immersed three thousand 
persons in that part of the day that remained 
after Peter's sermon and exhortation ; it is 
therefore extremely improbable that there was 
any immersion on that occasion. 

An examination of the circumstances con- 
nected with the baptism of the jailor and his 
family, will result in a similar conclusion. Af- 
ter Paul and Silas had been beaten with many 
stripes, they were "cast into prison;" when 
the jailor, being charged " to keep them safe- 
ly," of his own accord, '* thrust them into the 
inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
stocks." Here, let it be observed, two apart- 
ments are mentioned. The magistrates cast 



■M 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 149 

them into prison^ but the jailor thrust them 
into the i?iner prison. While here, Jehovah 
undertook their cause, and at midnight sent an 
earthquake that shook the prison to its founda- 
tions, opened its doors, loosed the fetters of the 
prisoners, and waked the keeper ; who seeing 
the doors open, concluded the prisoners had 
escaped, and was about to kill himself. But 
when Paul cried out, '' Do thyself no harm, for 
we are all here," the jailor called for a light, 
sprang in, fell down before Paul and Silas, 
brought them out, and inquired, " What must 
I do to be saved?" And the same hour, he 
and his, were baptized ; and he brought the pris- 
oners into his house, and "set meat before 
them." These are the material incidents re- 
corded of this transaction, and if they do not 
forbid the supposition that the jailor and his 
family were immersed, we are greatly mistaken. 
We are aware it is assumed by the immer- 
gionist, that the mention made of the jail- 
or's bringing Paul and his companion out, 
and taking theih into his house, is proof that 
they went out of the prison in search of water; 
but this is a supposition destitute of proof, 
and utterly opposed to the recorded facts and 
rational probabilities of the case. It has been 
already observed that the prison had tv/o apart- 
ments — for Paul and Silas, after they were in 
prison, were thrown into the inner prison. It 
is also clear that the jailor's house was so 
connected with the prison as to form a part of 
the same building — because the first thing he 

n2 



150 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

saw on awaking out of his sleep, was the pris- 
on doors open, which he could not have seen 
had he lodged in a different house. Nor could 
he have sprung into the inner prison, as rep- 
resented, unless he had occupied an adjoining 
apartment. Having premised this, we are pre- 
pared, without leaving the prison, to follow the 
apostle when " brought out" and conducted into 
the house of the keeper. He was brought out 
of the inner prison into that apartment in which 
he had at first been cast, and from thence into 
the keeper's house, which was under the same 
roof, and a part of the prison. Add to this, 
that after the events of the night are detailed, 
the history leaves Paul and Silas in the house 
of the jailor, where in all probability they re- 
mained the balance of the night with their new 
converts ; but in the morning we find them still 
in prison, refusing to leave it until the magis- 
trates shall come and take them out as openly 
as they had cast them in. The obvious conclu- 
sion from this, is, that the keeper's house and 
the prison were synonymous. 

But further — the jailor by virtue of his of- 
fice might assign the prisoners any part of the 
prison which he considered most suitable ; but 
out of it he could not take them, without be- 
traying his trust, and violating the authority 
under which he acted. And certainly we can- 
not suppose this of a public functionary, in en- 
tering upon the duties of that religion which 
teaches subjection to " the powers that be." 
Nor is this all. The supposition that he had 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 151 

gone out to baptize the jailor and his family 
during the night, is wholly irreconcilable with 
the apostle's reply to the magistrates in the 
morning. When they sent word to the jailor 
to let the men go, Paul replied, substantially, 
we are here in prison, where they cast us 
openly, though we had committed no fault, 
" and do they now thrust us out privily ? Nay, 
verily," we will not go out thus, " but let them 
come themselves and fetchus outJ'^ Thus he 
manifested a consciousness of the rectitude of 
his own conduct, and an acute sense of fitness 
and propriety. " They cast us in prison with- 
out sufficient cause, and in prison will we re- 
main until they come and take us out." But 
how does this noble daring, in refusing to leave 
the prison till brought out by those who had 
cast him in, comport with the idea that he had 
previously been out to immerse the jailor ? 
Just about as well as light agrees with dark- 
ness, or the Bible with Campbellism. Such a 
supposition charges St. Paul with a duplicity 
unworthy his character^ — a hypocrisy entirely 
repugnant to the principles of that religion for 
which he laid down his life. The apostle, 
then, did not leave the prison during the night. 
Hence, the jailor and his family were baptized 
in the prison; and, consequently, they ivere 
not baptized by immersion. We can come to 
to no other conclusion, unless we charge tlie 
apostle with sheer hypocrisy, and imagine an 
event that has not even the most improbable 
of probabilities for its support. 



162 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

Another example, and perhaps the last one 
we shall adduce, is the baptism of St. Paul. 
The history of his case makes it clear that he 
was baptized in a house, and in an erect, or 
standing position ; and if so, he could not have 
been immersed. But let us look at the facts. 

In his journey to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus 
was arrested by the power of God, deprived of 
his sight, and in that condition conducted into 
the city, to the house of one Judas, where he 
continued three days without seeing any thing, 
or tasting food. In the mean time the Lord 
commanded Ananias to go to him, who, '* went 
his way, entered into the house," laid his hands 
upon Saul, and addressed him in the name of 
the Lord Jesus ; " and immediately there fell 
from his eyes as if it had been scales, and he 
received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
baptized." These are the facts narrated by the 
inspired writer ; and so far from holding out 
the idea of his leaving the house to be immersed, 
they plainly teach the contrary. Every un- 
prejudiced mind, upon reading the account, will 
conclude that Paul was baptized in the house 
where he received his sight. In confirmation 
of this, let it be observed, that through the 
whole narrative, when it was necessary for the 
persons concerned to travel, or pass from one 
place to another, the fact of their doing so is 
mentioned. For instance, it is said that Paul 
^'journeyed'' to Damascus, and when he was 
struck down by the way, that the voice said to 
him, «« Arise and go;" and that he arose, and 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 153 

" they led him by the hand, and hr ought him 
into Damascus." Then the Lord said to Ana- 
nias, *' Arise and go into the street that is called 
Straight," and he "went his way, and entered 
into the house." But when he came, he did 
not say to Saul, arise and go to the water, as 
in the other cases, and which in all probability 
he would have said, if such a movement had 
been necessary. His language was, " Arise 
and be baptized ;" and the account adds that 
Saul " arose and was baptized." If all these 
circumstances do not establish beyond reasona- 
ble doubt, that Saul did not leave the house till 
after his baptism, we can scarcely conceive it 
possible that any fact can be established by cir- 
cumstantial evidence. 

But in addition to his being in a house, we 
have conclusive proof that the apostle was 
baptized standing on his feet. In an able criti- 
cism on this passage, by Dr. Cleland of Ken- 
tucky, it is clearly demonstrated that the verb 
analSTAs, used to denote Paul's rising iip<, in 
order to be baptized, could do no more than 
place him on his feet, and that it properly sig- 
nifies, he stood up. Every scholar knows that 
the New Testament uses it in this sense ; or, at 
least, he may know it if he will examine. We 
give one example. It is written, Mark, xiv. 
60: " And the high priest stood up [anastas] 
in the midst, and asked Jesus," &;c. Now, if 
anastas signifies that the .high priest " stood 
up," it must signify the same of Saul ; and 
hence we have indubitable evidence that he was 
7 * 



154 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 

baptized standing* on his feet, in an erect pos- 
ture. Add to this, that he was baptized in a 
private house — for no person from reading the 
history of the case, can come to any other con- 
clusion ; and he who still imagines he was im- 
mersed, must be more anxious to sustain a fa- 
vorite theory, than to submit to the testimony 
of the Bible. To talk of immersion performed 
in a private house, is, indeed, sufficiently ri- 
diculous ; but to add to this, that the subject 
was immersed while standing on his feet, caps 
the climax of absurdity and impossibility. 

"We have now examined three cases of bap- 
tism taken from the New Testament, in which 
the presumption against immersion is so strong 
as to amount almost to an absolute certainty. 
The case of Cornelius and his friends, is simi- 
lar in its character. It contains nothing favora- 
ble to immersion. Its p^babilities lie entirely 
against that practice. It is not pretended that 
these circumstances prove what the primitive 
mode of baptism was ; but they certainly prove 
that- it was not immersion. In the absence, 
then, of any proof that either John the Baptist, 
or the apostles, immersed one of their converts, j 
arid v/itli the certain knowledge that some of 
them were baptized under circumstances that 
rendered their immersion impossible, we can- 
not resist the belief that the primitive christians 
were baptized by pGiiring or sprinkling. 

Before we close the present number, we will 
briefly touch a few other considerations that stand 
opposed to the exclusive immersion practice. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 155 

1, If God had intended that immersion, and 
it alone, should be the mode of baptism for his 
church, it is surely probable he would have 
commanded it, and in terms so explicit that 
none could doubt. But this is not the case. 
The Scriptures nowhere command it, nor do 
they give us any assurance that the apostles 
practiced it in one single instance. 

2. If the persons baptized, by the apostles 
were immersed, it is quite likely that the in- 
spired writers in detailing the circumstances, 
would have added something about their ad- 
journing to some river or pond in search of 
water. Indeed, upon the immersion theory, 
we can scarcely conceive it possible that among 
all the cases of baptism recorded in the Acts 
of the Apostles, no mention should be made 
of their going to, or being at some stream o^. 
fountain. But the accounts give no intimation' 
of any thing of this nature. Among all the 
persons therein mentioned, the eunuch is the 
only one said to have been baptized at a stream 
or spring, and this was a mere casual circum- 
stance. While pursuing his journey, he heard 
the sermon under which he was converted, and 
was then baptized with the first water he found 
on the way. He did not go there in search of 
a suitable place to receive the ordinance ; nor 
is there the least hint of such a procedure in 
any other case. Wherever the meeting was 
held, and in whatever place sinners professed 
faith in Christ, there^ and immediately, were 
they baptized. No delay, in order to prepare 



156 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

suitable apparel — no retiring from the place 
where converts were made, in search of suita- 
ble and sufficient water is mentioned ; but on 
the contrary, the facts, as given to us, convey 
no other idea, than that each was baptized forth- 
with, and in the very house where he heard and 
believed the gospel. 

3. If the efficacy of baptism depends more 
upon the frame or state of mind in which it is 
received, than upon any external circumstance, 
it is not probable that a mode unfavorable to de- 
votional exercises would be required. That 
baptism does require this state of mind, is ad- 
mitted, even by Mr. Campbell ; for he insists 
that the subject must have faith, or his baptism 
will not avail. ''If he believe not the gospel, 
he is, to speak after the manner of men, still- 
born." So says the oracle of Bethany ; and 
in tMs he concedes that baptism in order to be 
effectual, must be received when the mind is 
properly exercised. But immersion, in its 
practice, is wholly unfavorable to the exercise 
of that faith which takes hold upon the Savior. 
It often produces shivering, sobbing, and other 
unpleasant sensations, that must distract the 
thoughts, and entirely unfit the mind for a col- 
lected performance of a solemn act of devotion. 

4. It is not probable that a religion designed 
to be universal, would require any thing that is 
not practicable in all countries, and under all 
circumstances. But immersion is neither. In 
the higher latitudes, and at times in the tem- 
perate, the cold is so intense that it cannot be 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 157 

performed ; and often in the case of sick and 
delicate persons, its practice is wholly inadmis- 
sible. Indeed, with all the caution that is used, 
the loss both of health, and of life, has some- 
times occurred. 

And, finally, it is extremely improbable that 
a religion whose nature is purity and holiness, 
should have enjoined the performance of any 
thing indelicate. But the immersion of wo- 
men by men, and in the presence of crowds of 
men, is, to say the least of it, of questionable 
propriety. With all the arrangements of mod- 
ern times, in providing changes of dress, and 
suitable apparel, so as to give the least possi- 
ble offence to delicacy, immersion is not a de- 
cent practice. We have no recollection ever 
to have witnessed the performance of it, where 
females were concerned, without having ocu- 
lar demonstration of the truth of what we as- 
sert ; and it is doubted whether, with all the 
advantages of fit apparel and modern regula- 
tions, any female^ submits to it who has not a 
previous struggle with her delicacy. To sup- 
pose, then, that the apostles, at a time when no 
such accommodations could be had, were con- 
-stantly, wherever they went, immersing men 
and women, in pools and rivers, in the pres- 
ence of many spectators, and they, sometimes, 
unbelievers, is more than rational credulity can 
submit to. 

From all which, we conclude, and it is our 
firm belief, that immersion was neither com- 
manded by the Savior, nor practiced by the 

O 



168 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

apostles ; but originated in the efforts of men, 
who vainly thought they could improve the or- 
dinances, and mend the institutions of the 
church. 

In addition to the presumptions and strong 
probabilities against the immersion theory pre- 
sented in our last, we would now offer an argu- 
ment of a different character, and one which in 
our judgment is conclusive in favor of asper- 
sion or pouring. We refer to the mode of bap- 
tizing when Jesus Christ was the administrator. 
It is true he did not administer the baptism of 
water ; but there is another baptism recognized 
in the Scriptures, and which, though ejected 
by the deformed and spurious Christianity of 
Mr. Campbell's crimed, is far more essential 
than any outward ordinance. When this bap- 
tism is to be perfonned, the Savior himself be- 
comes the administrator, by pouring otit, or 
shedding forth his Spirit upon the subject ; and 
thus, by example, instructing his ambassadors 
how to proceed in q^^inistering the baptism 
of water* We ^o nbt suppose that this fact 
will have the same effect upon the minds of all 
others that it has upon ours ; nor are we dis- 
posed to censure either the head or heart of 
him who shall still adhere to immersion. But 
to us, the circumstance mentioned is entirely 
conclusive, and. seems sufficient to put this long 
disputed subject for ever at rest. The New 
Testament contains no evidence that baptism, 
in any instance, v/as administered by immer- 
sion ; but it records many cases of baptism by 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 159 

pouring. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
"syhich every christian must receive, is uniform- 
ly represented as being performed in this man- 
ner ; and believing this circumstance to throw 
more light on the primitive mode of baptism than 
any thing else found in the Scriptures, we will 
devote particular attention to its examination. 

But that the argument about to be presented 
may be understood in its full force, it will be 
necessary, first, to consider the object or design 
of baptism, so far as its representative or sym- 
bolic character is concerned. 

As a religious ordinance, baptism is a sign 
of regeneration, pointing out the cleansing of 
the soul from the pollution of sin, by the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit. In proof that this 
work in the soul is ascribed to the Spirit, the 
Scriptures are clear and decisive. Let one pas- 
sage suffice. Paul says to the Corinthians, 
" But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but 
ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
and by the Spirit of our God,'^^ — 1 Cor. vi, 11. 
Here the justification and sanctification of the 
believer are unequivocally declared to be effect- 
ed "by the Spirit of our God ;" and it is equal- 
ly clear that the same Divine authority, deno- 
minates this work a baptism; "for by one 
Spirit," says the apostle in the same epistle, 
" are we all baptized into one body." This is 
the baptism which constitutes us strictly and 
properly the disciples of Christ ; and the bap- 
tism of water, by which we are externally and 
nominally set apart for his service, is the sym- 



168 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

bol of the other — representing the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost, by which we are made, in re- 
ality, " new creatures." In the natural world, 
water is used to purify or cleanse from external 
defilement ; and hence the propriety of using 
it, in baptism, to signify the work of the Spirit, 
which cleanses the soul from the pollution 
of sin. 

This natural meaning of the ordinance is ob- 
viously to be inferred from the Word of God. 
The baptism of John had speeial reference to 
that of the Holy Spirit, which was to be admin- 
istered by Christ, who should come after him ; 
hence, while he was baptizing with water, he 
directed them to believe in the Messiah, who 
should baptize them^ " with the HoIi/ Ghost 
and with fire." For'this reason, we find the 
apostles frequently mentioning baptism in con- 
nection with the ''gift" and influences of the 
Spirit; and, hence, also, the language of the 
Savior to Nicodemus : '« Except a man be born 
of wafer and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God." Here we have the bap- 
tism of water so connected with the Spirit, in 
relation to the kingdom of God, as fully to 
warrant the conclusion that the former is 
intended to represent the latter. To be,l)ap- 
tized with water, is to enter formally "^ into 
God's visible kingdom ; to be baptized with 
the Spirit, is to enter into his spiritual or 
invisible kingdom. And as circumcision, under 
the old dispensation, was a sign of the cir- 
cumcision of the heart; so baptism, under 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 161 

the new, is significant of the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit. 

Other and stronger arguments might be ad- 
duced ; but to enter fully into this subject was 
not our design, nor would it comport with our 
limits. The considerations already presented 
must, therefore, suffice. But before we proceed, 
it may be necessary to notice another opinion 
in relation to this subject. 

It is generally believed by the advocates of 
immersion, that baptism represents the death, 
burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. This opinion, in addition to its total 
lack of Scripture for its support, is liable to 
other serious objections. The New Testament 
recognizes but two rites or sacraments, baptism 
and the Lord's supper, as binding upon chris* 
tians. The Lord's supper is a memorial of the 
sufferings and death of Christ, in the work of 
redemption. '* As oft as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord''s death 
till he come." It is certainly not reasonable 
to suppose that baptism is significant of the 
same thing. We can see no use in having two 
rites to represent the same transaction, even if 
they were somewhat similar in character ; but 
when 'we consider the vast dissimilarity be- 
tween baptism and the Lord's supper — that the 
elements of the one is water, and of the other 
bread and wine — that the former is to be ad- 
ministered but once to the same individual, and 
the latter to be frequently repeated — it is the 
height of absurdity to imagine that both are 

o2 



162 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

embfematic of the same event. As one of these 
ordinances certainly points out what Christ did 
for us, in dying for our sins, and rising for our 
justification, it is quite reasonable to conclude 
that the other represents what he does in us, 
by his Spirit, in purifying to himself a peculiar 
people. To suppose both sacraments to be 
significant of the former, while the latter has 
no representative, involves a manifest absurdity. 
From all these considerations, it is obvious that 
the great use of the baptism of water, is to re- 
present the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; and 
as the celebration of the Lord's supper to signi- 
fy the work of regeneration, would be a plain 
perversion of that ordinance, it follows that bap- 
tism, when administered to represent the death 
of Christ, is also a perversion. 

And, now, having seen that water baptism is 
an emblem of spiritual baptism, we proceed to 
present the argument mentioned in the first par- 
agraph of this number, drawn from the fact that 
the baptism of the Spirit was always administer- 
ed by pouring. The pouring out of the Spirit 
is, i^i the language of Scriptlire, uniformly call- 
ed baptism ; the inference is, therefore, irresisti- 
ble, that the pouring of water, is also baptism ; 
and this inference assumes the form of certain- 
ty, when we consider that the ordinance of bap- 
tism is an emblem of the baptism of the Spirit. 
To evade the force of this argument, some 
have assumed that the Scriptures only mention 
the baptism of the Spirit in a figurative sense, 
and hence they conclude that it can prove noth- 



CAMPBKLLISM EXPOSED. 163 

ing concerning the mode. We once heard a 
teacher, who is considered a modern Hercules, 
on account of his zeal for the destruction of 
those serpents — creeds and sectarianism — and 
his labors to spread the gospel of A. Campbell, 
descant nearly an hour on this point. He stat- 
ed that our language was necessarily figurative ; 
because we have more ideas than words. This 
discovery of the numerical preponderance of 
ideas over words, whether original with him, 
or learned from Mr. Campbell, was entirely new 
to us; and as the English language contains 
about seventy thousand words, we were quite 
puzzled to conjecture hpw the discovery had 
been made, that English men possess more than 
that number of ideas. The truth of the dis- 
covery, however, seemed somewhat problem- 
atical, especially in relation to the speaker 
himself; for though he appeared to have plenty 
of words, =iand even to understand the art of 
manufacturing new ones when necessary, his 
ideas were neither numerous nor brilliant. But 
whether true or -falsd^iit answered his purpose, 
which was to show, what no one doubts, that 
there is such a thing as a figurative nise of lan- 
guage ; and hence he took occasion to assert 
that When the pouring out of the Spirit is call- 
ed a baptism, the term is used in a figurative 
sense, and -consequently can have no weight in 
determining the mode of administering the bap- 
tism of water. 

But this was a mistake. The conclusion is 
not warranted by the premises assumed. When 



164 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

figures are introduced they must have some re- 
semblance to the thing signified. Figuratively, 
we say a man is immersed in debt. This 
does not mean, it is true, that he is literally 
covered with debts ; but it does mean that his 
debts are so numerous as to cover the val- 
ue of his property ; and hence immersion is a 
fit representation of his situation. Again; a 
painter draws the figure of a house, and though 
he does not intend it to be literally a house, he 
intends it to be as much like one as possible. 
And so of all figures, and figurative language. 
Unless the figure bears some resemblance to 
the thing signified, it can in no proper sense 
be said to be its figure ; and, therefore, the fig- 
ute of baptism, whatever it may be, must re- 
semble baptism. 

Now it matters not for our present purpose, 
whether the descent of the Holy Ghost be de- 
nominated baptism, in a figurative sense, or 
whether the baptism of water be designed to 
represent that circumstance. In either case, the 
conclusion is the same ; for J;he figure must 
have some similarity to the thing signified. 
Every Bible reader knows that the pouring ouf^ 
or falling of the Holy Spirit upon the people, 
is called baptism. If the term here be used 
only figuratively, it follows that the action to 
which it is applied, resembles the ordinance 
from which the figure is derived ; and if the 
rite of baptism be considered as a symbol of 
the descent of the Holy Ghost, it will not vary 
the result. Either way the resemblance must 



CAMPBELLTSM EXPOSED. 165 

9 exist. But where is the resemblance between 
immersion and the baptism, or pouring out of 
the Spirit ? It cannot be found, for it has no 
existence. Immersion, therefore, in this res- 
pect, wholly destroys the significancy of bap- 
tism, and renders it an unmeaning ceremony ; 
while pouring retains the analogy between the 
sign and the thing signified, and is clearly em- 
blematic of the washing away of the guilt and 
pollution of sin by the pouring out of the Holy 
Spirit — the only thing of which the Scriptures 
make baptism an emblem. 

We will now present the argument more in 
detail, by noticing a few passages of Scripture 
that are directly in point. When John was 
baptizing in Jordan he said, '' I indeed baptize, 
you with water ; but he that cometh after me 
shall baptize yoii with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire." Similar to this is the language of 
the Savior to his disciples, recorded, Acts, i. 5 ; 
"John truly baptized with water, but ye .shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." In both of these passages the 
term baptism is applied to the giving of the 
Spirit, as clearly as it is applied to the ordi- 
nance which John administered ; and as these 
two pass under the same name, the best method 
of determining the proper mode of administer- 
ing the ordinance, is to ascertain in what man- 
ner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described 
in Scripture. This is certainly a correct course. 
Two actions are called by the same name — we 
have no certain knowledge of the manner of 



166 CAMPBELLI3M EXPOSED. 

the performance of the frrst ; if therefore, we 
can discover how the second was done, it must 
be decisive in determining the mode of the 
other. 

And here we are not left in the dark. The 
Scriptures tell us in the most positive manner 
that the baptism of the Spirit was administered 
by pouring out, or falling upon. In the his- 
tory of the fulfillment of the prophecy, that 
Jesus should " baptize with the Holy Ghost 
and with fire," we have not only the fact that 
he did baptize his disciples, but, also, the most 
unquestionable proof that that baptism was by 
pouring. This event is recorded in the 2d 
chapter of Acts, where it is said, " And there 
appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of 
Jire, and it sat upon eachkof them ; and they 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost.''^ And 
Peter stood up in the midst and said, "This is 
that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, and 
it shall come to pass in the last days, saith Qod, 
I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." 
That this was the fulfillment of the prophecy 
of John the Baptist, and of th^ promise of the 
Savior, concerning the baptism 'of the Holy 
Ghost, is rendered entirely certain by the lan- 
guage of Peter on another occasion. When 
giving an account of his visit t<(5 Cornelius, he 
says, " And as I began to speak, the Holy 
Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
he said, John indeed baptized with water; but^ 
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." j 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 167 

Acts, xi. 15, 16. Two things are plainly taught 
in this passage. 1. When the Holy Ghost fell 
on Peter's hearers, he considered it baptism ; 
for it caused him tb remember the word of the 
Lord, " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost." 2. When he says that the Spirit 
''fell on them, as on us at the begrnning,^^ 
he evidently refers back to Pentecost ; and by 
alluding to the promise the Savior had given, to 
baptize them with the Holy Ghost, proves that 
that promise was then fulfilled. This, then, 
by the Savior, and by his forerunner John, was 
called baptism. But Joel prophesied that it 
should be administered by pouring, and Peter 
tells us it was administered in this mode. It 
is, therefore, a settled point, that the baptism 
of the Spirit was 2i 0uring out — a descent upon, 
and not an immersion into. But the same 
word that here implies pouring, is used to de- 
note the ordinance ; and hence it is certain that 
baptism is correctly administered by pouring. 
"For if baptism," says Mr. Watson, ** neces- 
sarily means immersion, and John baptized 
by immersion, then did not Jesus baptize his 
disciples with the Holy Ghost. He might 
bestow it upon them, but he did not baptize 
them with it, according to the immersionists, 
since he ovAy 'poured it upon them,' 'shed it 
upon them,' and caused it ' io fall upon them ;' 
none of which, according to them, is baptism. 
It follows, therefore, that the prediction of John 
was never fulfilled, in their sense of baptizing ; 
because, none of the disciples of Jesus men- 



168 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

tioned in the Acts of the Apostles ever received 
the Holy Ghost but by affusion. This is the 
dilemma into which they put themselves. They 
must allow that baptism is not in this passage 
used for immersion, or they must deny that 
Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy Ghost." 
All the other accounts of the baptism of the 
Spirit agree as to the mode, with that which 
was administered by the Savior on the day of 
Pentecost. They all represent the Spirit as com- 
ing from above, like the pouring of water upon 
the head. When our Lord received this bap- 
tism, the Spirit of God descended like a dove, 
and lighted upon him. When Cornelius and 
those that were with him received the same 
gift, it is said, '* the Holy Ghost /<?// on them ;" 
'' and they of the circumcision that believed, 
were astonished, because that on the Gentiles, 
also, was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost;" and when St. Paul Connects the two 
baptisms in a manner somewhat similar to the 
words of John the Baptist, and our Lord, in 
the passages above quoted, he expresses the 
mode of the baptism of the Spirit in the same 
manner: *' which he shed on us abundantly 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus it is 
seen that that baptism which the Savior ad- 
ministers, is uniformly administered by pouring ; 
and as the baptism which we are commanded 
to administer is a symbol of the other, and 
should be as much like it as possible, it neces- 
sarily follows, that the pouring of water upon 
the subject is the correct mode of baptism. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 169 

The argument is now before our readers. 
The circumstances under which we have writ- 
ten, have caused us to present it in a crude and 
rather desultory manner ; we will, therefore, 
repeat and sum up the whole in a fev/ words. 

1. Two thing's pertaining to Christianity, and 
intimately connected in the Scriptures, are call- 
ed by the same name — the baptism of water, 
and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The 
Scriptures do not, either by example or precept, 
inform us how the former was administered ; 
but they tell us as plainly as language can, that 
the latter was always administered by being 
poured out^ or shed forth on the subject; it 
is therefore plain that the water, in baptism, 
should be poured upon the person baptized. 

2. It has been shown that water baptism is a 
symbol or sign of the baptism of the Spirit; con- 
sequently, there nijist be some resemblance be- 
tween them. But the baptism of the Spirit is al- 
ways by affusion ; it is, therefore, certain that 
water baptism should be administered in the 
same way. 

3. And, finally, as there is no proof that in 
any instance found in the New Testament, bap- 
tism was performed by immersion ; as there 
are so many presumptions and strong proba- 
bilities against that practice, as have been sta- 
ted ; and as we have decisive evidence of a de- 
signed correspondence between the baptism, 
the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the 

.^baptism, the pouring out of water, we may 
conclude with confidence, that the latter was the 
8 P 



170 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

apostolic mode of administering that ordinance. 

This is the conclusion at which we have arriv- 
ed ; and this we believe to be a true and necessa- 
ry conclusion from the facts we have laid before 
the reader. Not that we suppose that all who 
may read our remarks will be led to think as we 
do. We know human nature too well to harbor 
such a thought. But we do most firmly believe, 
if men could and would lay aside their precon- 
ceived notions in favor of immersion, and come 
to the Bible to learn the truth, " as they that must 
give an account" forwhat they believe, as well as 
for what they do, that the facts presented in this 
number, are sufficient to settle forever this ve- 
ry exciting and unprofitable controversy. 

Before we said any thing in these strictures 
concerning the mode of baptism, we had prov- 
ed that the importance Mr. Campbell attaches 
to the ordinance, and the object for which he 
administers it, are anti-scriptural, nearly allied 
to Popery, and dangerous to the souls of his 
adherents ; and now, when it is seen that his 
system is built, not upon the ordinance, pro- 
perly, but upon a certain mode of administer- 
ing it, which never can be proved to accord 
with the primitive practice, both he and his 
reformation are placed in an attitude by no 
means enviable. Indeed, when, in addition to 
this, we consider the violence with which he 
assails the christian world, the impudence with 
which he disclaims sectarianism, and the arro- 
gance he manifests in claiming for himself and 
his followers the appellation of the only true j^j 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 171 

church, our risible powers would be excited, 
were it not for the superior claims^upon our pi- 
ty and our prayers. 

Our remarks on the mode of baptism are now 
closed. We should have said nothing on the 
subject, but for the arrogance and presumption 
of Mr. Campbell and his partisans. He at the 
outset had palmed upon the public a spurious 
translation of the New Testament, which was 
designed to fix the mode, by giving the original 
a translation that should coniine it to immersion; 
then to sustain the unwarrantable position he 
had indulged in assertions equally unwarranta- 
ble, and wantonly assailed the good and wise of 
every name, who refused to submit to his dic- 
tation, till many of the ignorant and unstable 
had really concluded immersion to be necessary 
to salvation. This reckless course gave birth to 
a system by which the most abandoned sinners, 
by a sudden pop under the water, and without 
any Divine influence, are not only transformed 
into angels of light, but have their mental facul- 
ties so illuminated that they know all about the 
Scriptures, and immediately become teachers 
and expounders. Hence it is no uncommon oc- 
currence to see those who so far from under- 
standing the original, do not know enough of 
their mother tongue to distinguish between the 
nominative case and the verb, in the plainest 
sentence, going about with the New Testament 
and the Millennial Harbinger, endeavoring to 
make proselytes, asserting that bajotizo always 
means immersion, and with the most unblush- 



172 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

ing temerity, sending to perdition all who do 
not follow them under the water. Such con- 
duct merits little but contempt ; and should have 
received no notice from us, but for the fact that 
their '*great swelling words,-' and arrogant as- 
sumptions, are calculated to mislead a portion of 
the community, and thereby to endanger im- 
mortal souls. To contribute our mite in coun- 
teracting those evils, was our motive in writing ; 
and for this purpose only have we concerned 
with the mode of baptism. We close by re- 
peating, that neither the import of baptizo, nor 
the Word of God, warrants the conclusion that 
immersion only is baptism, ; and hence the man 
who says to his neighbor, " you must be im- 
mersed or you cannot be a disciple of Christ," 
is insincere or ignorant, or bigoted, or influenc- 
ed by the fell spirit of ^ despotic intolerance 
which established the inquisition, and incarce- 
rated aud burnt the martyrs in the dark ages of 
papal Rome. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 173 

CHAPTER V. 

CREEDS. 

Campbellites profess t6 reject all creeds— creeds do not 
produce sects — those who use creeds do not equal them 
to scripture — uses of creeds — they shew in what sense 
scripture is received — they promote peace and harmony 
— do not prevent the free useof opinion — Campbellites 
have a creed. 

Ever since Campbellism began to develop it- 
self, many christians have looked upon some of 
its doctrines arid assumptions, as too absurd to 
require a serious refutation. Those points to 
which we now invite attention, have been con- 
sidered of this description; but though we have 
truth on our side, we may err, by placing too 
much dependence upon the goodness of our 
cause. Some one has said, " Let not the advo- ' 
cates of truth trust every thing to their cause 
and do nothing themselves, lest the vigilance of 
error should triumph." Believing this advice 
to be founded in wisdom, and applicable to the 
present case, we intend to profit by the sugges- 
tion. 

Mr. Campbell professes to reject all human 
creeds, and claims for himself and*his followers 
exemption froiii sectarianism. To adduce from 
his writings proof of the correctness cf this 
statement, is unnecessary. All who have pe- 
msed the *« Christian Baptist," or the " Millen- 
nial Harbinger," have discovered that these 

p2 



174 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

assumptions form a leading feature of his boast- 
ed reformation ; and all who have listened to 
the harangues of any of his teachers, proclaim- 
ers, or evangelists, are aware that the *'hue and 
cry" against creeds and sectarianism, as man's 
work and priestcraft, are so necessary to the 
existence of the system that no man can be a 
legitimate reformer who does not chime in and 
dance to the same measure. To the existence 
of creeds and confessions of faith, they attribute 
all that dissension and controversy that are 
found among christians ; and professing them- 
selves to have no creed but the NewTestament, 
they modestly claim to be, not a sect but the 
WHOLE CHURCH, and invite us to abandon our 
creeds, and unite with them in restoring peace 
to the world, and in bringing in the latter-day 
glory. Now, all this, to an intelligent, investi- 
gating mind, acquainted with the facts of the 
case, is sufficiently ridiculous to furnish its own 
refutation. But all men are not intelligent, or 
at least are not disposed to close investigation 
where matters of religious controversy are con- 
cerned. Many take things on trust, and be- 
lieve them because others say they are true ; 
and hence the reckless and seeming confident 
assertions of Mr. Campbell's proclaimers, when 
not met and ^refuted, have frequently had'a fa- 
vorable reception, and induced some to believe 
that Campbellites do, in reality, reject all hu- 
man opinions, and that they have less sectari- 
anism than their neighbors. It is therefore 
certain, that an investigation of their claims 



» 



CAMPBELLISBI EXPOSED. 175 

in reference to these points, may not be labor 
in vain. 

We have already intimated, that Mr. Camp- 
bell attributes the different opinions and parties 
that are found in the christian world, to the ex- 
istence of creeds ; and hence, he infers that 
their annihilation would unite the various de- 
nominations, and harmonize the whole church. 
Now it is admitted that this inference is logical, 
and would necessarily follow, if the truth of the 
premises could be established. But this can 
never be done. In order to see the absurdity 
of the above position, it is only necessary for 
us to ascertain the cause that originated differ- 
ent creeds. No effect can exist uncaused. — 
But different creeds do exist ; therefore some 
cause has produced them. What was that 
cause? Certainly, not unity of sentiment, or 
opinion of the church. If there ever was a 
time when the views of the church were of a 
oneness, when all its members were of the 
same mind, and entertained the same opinions 
with regard to the import of the Word of God, 
it is certain that that time could not have given 
birth to different creeds ; for so long as a unity 
of faith continued, such creeds could not have 
been produced.. Members of the Church must 
have differed in opinion before they could have 
expressed discordant views upon parchment or 
paper ; and hence we discover that differing 
creeds originated from the previous existence of 
conflicting opinions in the church. To sup- 
pose, therefore, that our creeds make men to 



176 CAMPBELLIS3I EXPOSED. 

differ, and have caused all the divisions found 
among christians, involves the absurdity of 
supposing the effect to be older and more pow- 
erful than the cause that produced it. It is 
thus seen that the position assumed cannot be 
maintained, because it has not truth for its basis ; 
and it folio vvs of course that the inference drawn 
from it must necessarily perish. Indeed, the 
supposition that the destruction of creeds would 
annihilate party spirit, and unite the various 
denominations of christians, argues so little 
knowledge of hum.an nature and of the history 
of the world, that w^e are wholly at a loss to see 
how men of the intelligence of Mr. Campbell and 
some of his proclaimers, can believe it. Man 
is a fallen being — his judgment is impaired, and 
his understanding darkened. In this state of 
things, the minds of men are so constituted that 
they must necessarily differ in opinion. They 
never have beheld all things through the same 
medium, and in the same light, nor can they 
ever thus see them. Now suppose this cru- 
sade against creeds, confessions, and comment- 
aries to be successful ; imagine every thing in 
the shape of a creed destroyed, every book, 
manuscript, and pamphlet, from the writings of 
the ancient fathers, down to the last number of 
Mr. CampltelFs Millennial Harbinger, com- 
mitted to the flames, and all the party names of 
all the christian sects forgotten : imagine, we 
say, all this effected, and the Bible to be the 
only religious book remaining in the world. — 
And what, after all, would be the result ? Why, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 177 

we would have to begin anew to study the Scrip- 
tures ; and in the investigation, some would 
arrive at one conclusion, and some at another. 
Some would consider them to teach that the Sa- 
vior is the self-existent, unoriginated Jehovah; 
others, that he is an inferior created being ; 
some would settle down in the belief of uncon- 
ditional, universal salvation ; others v/ould find 
salvation suspended upon conditions ; some 
would conclude that Christ died in the same 
sense for every man ; others that the merits of 
his death were only designed for the elect ; some 
would find the condition of the pardon of sin 
to be faith; others would consider it works ; 
and some would find regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit clearly taught in the Scriptures ; while 
others, like Mr. Campbell and the Catholics, 
would refer this work to the water of Baptism. 
Now all these being equally sincere, and as 
each considers his own views both true and of 
vital importance, he is anxious for others to em- 
brace them, and wonders why any one should 
hesitate. Here then is the beginning of strife ; 
and a scene of contention follows far more af- 
flictive and disastrous than any that could arise 
between the different sects as they now exist, 
and the only way of restoring peace is to sep- 
arate, and suffer, the advocates of each system 
of doctrines to unite to preach Chi^st as they 
understand him, and v/orship him in that man- 
ner which they consider the Scriptures to autho- 
rize. Hence the whole would result in the for- 
mation of different creeds, and of as many sects. 
8 * 



178 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

In conversation with a Campbellite bishop, a 
few years ago, we met his suggestion that Me- 
thodists should throw aside their Discipline, 
with the above views, to which he only an- 
swered, *' This is your opinion." We replied, 
very true, but it is an opinion so well founded 
and reasonable, that it is morally impossible the 
result should be otherwise ; for that which has 
been would be again under similar circumstan- 
ces. And as conflicting opinions originally di- 
vided the church into sects, and induced the for- 
mation of creeds, it is obvious that the cause 
must be removed before a second experiment 
could produce a different result. But the cause 
is not removed, nor can it be. Men are the 
same imperfect, erring creatures now, that they 
were in the second and third centuries. They 
differ in opinion and judgment, and without a 
miracle, must for ever differ. Until all men 
can be furnished with the same amount of intel- 
lect, and be placed upon entire equality in eve- 
ry other respect, it is impossible to bring them 
to think alike. It is, therefore, unquestionable, 
that the destruction of all our creeds and confes- 
sions, and the rejection of all party names and 
distinctions, would lead to much strife, and end 
in the formation of sects and parties, similar to 
the present, if not worse. 

But we^ must notice another position assumed 
by these would-be creed exterminators ; which 
is, that creeds and confessions are, by those that 
adhere to them, considered paramount to the 
Wprd of God. Here they concentrate their 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 179 

strength, and exhaust their powers of declamation 
and assertion. We have heard them declare with 
the most unblushing impudence in the presence 
of hundreds, that Methodists, Presbyterians, 
Baptists, and all other sectarians, substitute their 
creeds and confessions of faith, for the Bible, and 
place greater dependence upon the former than 
the latter ! And these assertions passing for truth 
with the " unthinking crowd," have doubtless 
left the impression upon many minds, that Camp- 
bellites only believe and receive the Bible, while 
all others have substituted in its stead, the works 
of uninspired men. But are those who make 
these assertions sincere ? Do they believe what 
they say ? In charity we are bound to suppose 
they do ; but this admission can only be made at 
the expense of the presumption that they under- 
stand what they are talking about. If they will 
examine the Methodist Discipline, they will find 
it declared that " The Holy Scriptures contain all 
things necessary to salvation," and are " the on- 
ly rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith 
and practice." And in this we are not singu- 
lar ; our sister churches hold essentially the 
same views. The sufficiency of the Scriptures, 
as a rule of faith and practice, forms a promi- 
nent feature in the character of Protestant Chris- 
tendom ; and she acknowledges throughout all 
her ranks and divisions, " that whatsoever is not 
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not 
to be required of any man as an article of faith." 
What then are we to think of those, who tell us 
they take the book, and make the Bible their 



180 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

guide, while they denounce all others and 
charge them with laying more stress upon the 
opinions of men than upon the word of God? 
We have already admitted that they may be sin- 
cere ; but we did not make this admission to 
forestall the judgment of the reader. We leave 
him to determine at his leisure, whether such 
assertions be the fruits of dishonesty or of ig- 
norance. 

But to the mind of one who has not consid- 
ered this subject in all its bearings, a difficulty 
may here arise : he is ready to inquire, " If the 
Scriptures be the only rule of faith and prac- 
tice, where then is the necessity for creeds ?" 
This question is, in part, answered already in 
the paragraph preceding the last ; but it may 
be necessary to notice it further. Creeds are 
not intended to teach, or make known new doc- 
trines ; and consequently they do not lay claim 
to inspiration. They are necessary, 1st. To 
let the world know what those who adopt them, 
consider the Scriptures to teach. All who read 
the Bible may agree as to what it says, but its 
meaning is not so clear. We need not again 
remark that mankind cannot " see eye to eye" 
— that they must necessarily have different 
views of the same truth ; and hence in reading 
the Bible they will receive different, and some- 
times opposite impressions from the same words. 
The truth of this is abundantly proved by facts; 
for the most heterodox and absurd parties in 
Christendom profess to derive their notions from 
the Bible. Look at the Unitarian, the Soeini- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSEP. 181 

an, the Universalist, the Shaker and the Mor- 
monite — all professing to believe the Bible as 
firmly as does Mr. Campbell ; and yet contend- 
ing for foolish vagaries, and semi-infidel theo- 
ries, differing as widely from each other as Mr. 
Campbell's Testament differs from the Word of 
God. Now while men, sincerely inquiring af- 
ter truth, continue to arrive at such various con- 
clusions, it is obvious that the Bible, though it 
contains every thing needful for salvation, and 
is the only rule of faith and practice, is not a 
sufficient expose of our belief. We must re- 
ceive nothing as an article of faith, that is not 
taught therein ; but still the Bible does not show 
to the world what our faith is, because men un- 
derstand it differently. We say we believe the 
Bible, and so say a thousand others, whose 
opinions are wholly unlike ours ; and hence our 
doctrines are unknown, and the world knows 
not whether to rank us among Unitarians, or 
Trinitarians, Socinians, Universalists, or Camp- 
bellites. In proof, we might refer to the Uni- 
tarians of our country who reject all human 
creeds, and profess to take the Bible alone. To 
ascertain what they do believe is impossible ; 
for we can scarcely find two of them that be- 
lieve alike. Is it not clear from all this, that 
creeds are necessary to let others know v/hat 
we understand to be the doctrines of the Bible, 
and that we are neither ashamed nor afraid to 
declare those doctrines to the world ? It seems 
so to us. And so long, at least, as Universal- 
ists and Campbellites tell us they believe the 

Q 



182 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 

Bible, we shall consider it our duty to subscribe 
to a written creed, lest we be identified with the 
one or the other and thereby give countenance 
to their dangerous absurdities. 

A second reason for adopting creeds and 
confessions is, that the peace and harmony of 
the general church may be the better preserved. 
This will, no doubt, appear paradoxical to Uni- 
tarians or Campbellites, who consider creeds to 
be the promoters of discord and strife ; but v/e 
have previously shown that their assumptions 
here are erroneous,- and there is no reason to doubt 
that the christian world enjoys more quietness, 
as now divided into sects and ranged under their 
several creeds, than it would do if all its paper 
walls were broken down, and all the discordant 
materials of which it is composed jumbled to- 
gether. We admit that the destruction of creeds 
and the rejection of party names, might be pro- 
ductive of good, if the views of all could be 
brought to harmonize. But can this be done ? 
No ; we might as well expect to find all men 
with the same features, and of the same stature. 
Human nature must be remodeled, before we 
can rationally look for either. Seeing then, that 
mankind must necessarily have different views 
of the truths of the Bible, and that it is utterly 
impossible to bring them to understand it alike, 
is it not superlatively ridiculous to talk of pro- 
moting peace, by destroying those creeds, un- 
der which those, whose opinions are in the 
main, similar, are united, and by which they 
are partially separated from their neighbors of 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 183 

opposite views, and throw them all together 
in a heterogeneous mass ? Not even those de- 
nominations whose articles of faithhave so much 
sameness, that they receive the appellation of 
orthodox, would be likely to harmonize and 
work well together. What then would be the 
result if these were compelled to unite with 
Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Universalists, 
Shakers, and Campbellites, and all others who 
profess to believe the Bible, no matter how ab- 
surd their notions may be ? Who does not see 
that such a union, would be no union — that such 
discordant materials coming in contact would 
be productive of anything rather than peace and 
harmony ? Contention and controversy would 
certainly follov/ ; and experience proves that 
contentions are never more bitterly carried on 
than v/hen they exist in the same family. "A 
house divided against itself cannot stand," nor 
can 'Hwo walk together except they be agreed." 
It is obvious, then, that creeds are necessary, 
and that the existence of sectional divisions is 
the most effectual method of securing the peace 
of the v/hole church. 

It has been just stated, as an argument for 
the use of creeds, that men in reading the Bible 
cannot fall to arrive at different conclusions. 
This, though an obvious truth, is declared by 
those who war with creeds and sects, to be 
derogatory to the character of the Scriptures ; 
which, they tell us, always " mean what they 
say," and say their meaning so plainly that *'a 
child of ten years old may understand them." 



184 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

How astonishing is it, then, that these same men 
were in the dark, and could not understand the 
Scriptures, till Mr. Campbell came over the 
great waters to enlighten them. But the truth 
is, such assertions are contradicted by the expe- 
rience of the world. The fact that all men 
cannot understand the Scriptures alike, is no 
evidence that the Almighty failed in communi- 
cating his will to the human family. It only 
proves the ignorance and depravity of those to 
whom it was communicated. Many facts re- 
corded in the New Testament go to prove that 
the disciples of our Lord, who were favored 
with his personal instructions, frequently failed 
to understand him. But are we to infer from 
this, that Jesus Christ was not a competent 
teacher? By no means. He possessed '* all 
the treasures of wisdom;" and consequently 
knew perfectly what instructions to give, and 
the best manner of giving them. But still, 
those who heard his words, did not always un- 
derstand him, nor always agree in their opinions. 
And further, Paul and Peter could not agree in 
all things. Paul contended that Peter was to 
blame ; and no doubt Peter thought the same 
of the other. At any rate they separated, and 
yet they continued to be apostles ; and while 
each went his own way, they both proclaimed 
the same Lord and Savior. Seeing then, that 
men are so constituted that entire unity of opin- 
ion, with regard to the doctrines of Christ, is 
impossible, is it not better for them, like Abra- 
ham and Lot, to separate under different creeds, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 185 

and preserve peace, than to continue together, 
and foment discord and strife ? 

But we are told that creeds are uncharitable 
and arbitrary — that they are intended to bind 
men's consciences, and control their opinions. 
This, however, is a mistake. Protestant creeds 
are not designed to coerce either credence or 
obedience. For instance, the articles of faith, 
received by the Methodist Episcopal church, do 
not compel any man to adopt them. They man- 
ifest to the world, what we consider to be the 
leading doctrines of the gospel, and thus serve 
as a rallying point where those who believe with 
us may meet and unite. These we cordially 
receive, and admit into fellowship ; but those 
who understand the Scriptures differently, have 
no inducement, nor compulsion to unite with us ; 
and we rejoice that they may find some other 
denomination, whose views they may adopt, 
and with whom they may conscientiously wor- 
ship God in their own way. The same may 
be said of the creeds and economy of our sis- 
ter churches. Thus men are not bound to pin 
their faith to this or that creed, any further than 
they may believe it compatible with the Word 
of God. That alone is the test of all creeds. 
Nor are they bound, after they have adopted a 
" certain creed, always to adhere to it. They 
still have liberty of conscience, and enjoy the 
privilege of changing their opinions and their 
creed, when they choose. Hence, it is obvi- 
ous, that there is nothing unreasonable or arbi- 
trary in the existence of creeds and sects ; and 

q2 



186 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

that they do not necessarily cause strife, or hin- 
der the progress of the gospel. It is admitted 
that between the different families of the house- 
hold of faith, unnecessary and hurtful conten- 
tion does sometimes exist ; but it is denied that 
this is the legitimate and unavoidable result of 
their party establishments. Its origin may be 
traced to the erring judgments, the discordant 
materials, and the unholy passions that enter 
into the composition of fallen human nature ; 
and as these would be the same, the strife would 
be far m.ore bitter, and the consequences more 
disastrous, if the contending parties were more 
intimately connected. Sectional divisions, we 
repeat, do not necessarily produce contention, 
or retard the progress of the gospel. While 
under this regulation, we have the privilege of 
enjoying our opinions, and of worshipping God 
according to the dictates of our consciences, and 
our understanding of the Scriptures, we may, 
and should rejoice, that others have the same 
privilege. My Presbyterian and Baptist neigh- 
bors do not see as I do ; but this is no good rea- 
son for our quarrelling. We are all children 
of the same Parent, members of the same gene- 
ral family, contending against the same common 
fo^s, and aiming for the same heaven, and there- 
fore have no cause to '' fall out by the way." 
On the contrary, our party distinctions may 
be the means of provoking and stimulating each 
denomination to '*love and good works ;" and 
there is little doubt, that this very circumstance 
causes more sermons to be preached than other- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 187 

wise would be, and that it is subservient to the 
" furtherance of the gospel." 

But after all, the Campbellite, glorying in his 
imaginary adherence to the New Testament 
alone, will sneeringly remark : *' All your creeds, 
disciplines, and confessions of faith, are man's 
work, and nothing more than human opinions." 
And this point we shall certainly not dispute 
about. They are human opinions ; they claim 
to be nothing more. But they are the honest 
opinions of those who adopt them, founded, as 
they believe, upon the Y/ord of God — an ex- 
pression of therr views of the Scripture, or the 
manner in which they understand the Bible. 
And have not all men opinions of their own ? 
Is it possible for any man to read the Bible, or 
to hear it read, and form no opinions as to its 
contents ? Can any one have no sentiments, or 
understand the Bible in no way ? If so, he must 
be a queer genius — a perfect unique ; and, con- 
sequently, not a very suitable person for others 
to pattern after. But we do not bring this charge 
against Mr. Campbell. We intend just now to 
prove that his brain is as rife with opinions and 
notions as most men's ; and that he is not at all 
scrupulous about communicating them to others, 
so as to gain proselytes ; and that he and his 
followers adhere as tenaciously to their opinions 
as those who adopt written creeds. So long 
then, as all men must necessarily have their 
opinions, where is the difference between a 
written and verbal creed? As it respects a 
man's sentiments, they are certainly the same ; 



188 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

but the former in openly declaring their senti- 
ments to the world, manifest far more hon.esty 
and consistency, than the latter, who, under 
the garb of catholicity of spirit, profess to re- 
ject all human opinions, while they retain as 
much bigotry and intolerance as the most bitter 
sectarians. 

It is now time for us to examine more particu- 
larly this Campbellite cant, which tells us, they 
adhere only to the Bible, and have no opinions 
of their own. That such are their claims, no 
one who has any knowledge of them will ques- 
tion. Who ever listened to the harangues of 
one of their proclaim ers, or conversed with a 
Campbellite for half an hour upon the subject 
of religion, that did not hear him rail out against 
creeds and sects, while he assumed that he and 
his brethren of the reformation, were not sec- 
tarian, had rejected all human opinions, and re- 
ceived nothing but what they derived immediate- 
ly from the New Testament ? To convince the 
public of the soundness of these claims, has been 
one of their leading objects, from the beginning. 
We recollect an instance of one of their bishops 
soliciting the members of other churches to as- 
sist them, in preparing for an approaching pop- 
ular meeting at which the presence of Mr. 
Campbell was expected, and the ground of his 
plea was that all should aid them, because there 
was nothing sectarian in their meetings or do- 
ings. We have often heard it iterated, as a 
proof of their anti-sectarian character, that they 
do not embrace the views of any critic, com- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 189 

mentator, divine, or creed-maker, but follow the 
apostles, and believe in, and are governed by 
the New Testament alone. 

Now whether we be ignorant and blind by- 
reason of sectarian prejudice, others must deter- 
mine ; but in truth, from some cause or other, 
we are wholly unable to see the force of this 
last argument, or to admit the truth of the as-^' 
sumptions it is intended to sustain. Granting, 
for argument sake, that the Campbellites follow 
in the steps of no creed-maker, commentator, or 
expounder, does this prove them to be no sect ? 
Have they not their own views and opinions ? 
Do they not teach doctrines, establish rules, and 
follow practices of their own ? And do not these 
views and practices, which distinguish them 
from other denominations, stamp them with the 
essential features of sectarianism ? " O no — not 
at all," say they, "for our doctrines, govern- 
ment, and practice, are all derived from the ?^ew 
Testament." And now the whole secret is out. 
Campbellites receive their opinions from the 
New Testament, or at least they say they do, of 
course every thing they think to be true must 
be so, and every opinion that comes in contact ' 
with their notions must be man's opinion ; and 
therefore they have not one particle of sectarian- 
ism about them, while all who refuse to join them 
are sectarians and man-worshippers. Now all 
this would be plain enough, but for a difficulty 
that is so ill-natured as to obtrude. Unfortu- 
nately for this anti-sectarian establishment, she 
is not alone in claiming to derive her doctrines 



190 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

and usages from the Scriptures ; for it so hap- 
pens, that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, 
and all others, from the High Church of Eng- 
land, down to the lowest and most insignificant 
sect that has attained a name in the Christian 
world, set up the same claim. All profess and 
believe their doctrines to accord with the Scrip- 
tures, as confidently as do Campbellites. Who 
then is to decide the question that arises ? 
Campbellites of course claim this privilege ; and 
have already decided it in their ow^n favor, and 
thereby passed sentence of condemnation upon 
every man and woman in the world who cannot 
read the Scriptures through their spectacles. 
And still, w^e must not suppose that there is any 
self, sectarianism, bigotry or intolerance in this 
decision. Really there is something so prepos- 
terous in all this, that we find it no easy matter 
to treat it with becoming gravity. To see a 
little Jiarty^ occupying the dimensions of a mere 
point upon the i^ap of Protestant Christendom, 
strutting in all the pride of imaginary greatness, 
assum.ing airs, exclaiming, " We are the men — 
wdsdom will die with us- — we are Christ's, you 
belong to anti-Christ — -w^e have the true faith 
and are the true church, you are deluded secta- 
rians, following the opinions of men instead of 
the commandments of God." We say, gentle 
reader, to see all this, is it not enough to excite 
the risibility of the most phlegmatic ? But we 
must check our mirth ; for the picture presents 
another aspect, upon beholding which we can- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 191 

not but exclaim, poor human nature, alas, how 
art thou fallen ! 

But in the last paragraph, we have rather di- 
gressed from our present object, and partially 
anticipated the subject. We will now return 
and notice some of Mr. Cam^pbelFs opinions, 
and endeavor to ascertain how far they have 
the force of a creed with his followers. We 
are aware that a full and explicit creed, setting 
forth the opinions of Mr. Campbell, might 
be collected from his writings, in his own 
words ; but we have not leisure at present for 
this course, nor is it indeed, necessary. The fol- 
lowing items of belief, stated, however, in bur 
own language, are found in the writings and ac- 
tions of Mr. Campbell, and so far as we know 
or believe, universally adopted by his followers. 

1. Creeds and confessions are useless and 
mischievous — we will have none. 

2. God calls no man to preach the gospel — 
we will believe no man who says he is " called 
and sent." 

3. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with sin- 
ners — the Word and Spirit are synonymous. 

4. There can be no christian experience be- 
fore immersion — immersion alone is the act of 
turning to God. 

5. Immersion is an institution divinely ap- 
pointed for the remission of sins — no man can 
enjoy the peace of God or the hope of heaven, 
till he goes down into the water. 

6. It is folly to pray for the pardon of sin — 
be immersed 



192 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

7. Immersion, regeneration, and conversion 
are convertible terms, and mean the same thing 
—immersion is conversion. 

8. The common version of the New Testa- 
ment is not to be trusted — we will have a Tes- 
tament of our own, that shall agree with our 
opinions. 

It would be no difficult matter to swell the 
number of these articles of faith ; but we have 
given a few of the prominent features of the re- 
formation, and a sufficiency for our present 
purpose. Now we shall not stop to inquire, 
whether there is nothing of mere opinion in the 
above positions. Some of them we have ex- 
amined in our preceding numbers, and found 
to be based entirely upon human opinion ; and 
the others we are willing to submit to the judg- 
ment of the intelligent reader, who will be fully 
competent to detect the absurdity of the attempt 
to palm such dogmas upon the Word of God. 
But we would inquire, whether those who adopt 
the above or any thing similar, do not thereby, 
essentially and substantially, subscribe to a 
creed. We admit, that they do not, in so ma- 
ny words, do this — i. e. they have no instru- 
ment in writing, or in print, which they ac- 
knowledge as their creed. But what of this ? 
So long as they receive the notions of Mr. 
Campbell, and look up to him as an oracle, are 
they not as much creed-bound as any of us ? 
"No," say they, *' for we are not obliged to 
believe what Mr. Campbell writes, unless it 
agree with Scripture." And so say Presbyte- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 193 

rians and Methodists, in relation to their creeds 
and standard writings. They are not bound to 
receive any thing except it be consistent with 
the Word of God. And if they should become 
so far bewildered as to reject the Bible for the 
reformation and Mr. Campbell's deformed Tes- 
tament, they are entirely free to do so at any 
moment. Where then is the difference between 
Campbellites and others, in relation to this mat- 
ter ? It is this — the .latter have the candor to 
avow their sentiments, and publish them to the 
world as such ; the former adopt their own no- 
tions, or rather those of their leader, and hang 
to them with a tenacity very much like obstina- 
cy, and still have the inconsistency to tell the 
world, '* We have no creed, no sectarianism, no 
opinions of our own." Perhaps there is some 
truth in this latter assertion. They may have 
no opinions of their own; but then it is certain 
they have adopted those that Mr. Campbell has 
manufactured for them. 



^ R 



194 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

CHAPTER VI. 

SECTS— SECTARIANISM. 

Mr. Campbell imitates the Pope — Campbellism peculiar- 
ly sectarian — a dialogue — Campbellites excel in big- 
otry and intolerance — They idolize their leader — as- 
sume the name Reformers — are properly Campbellites. 

We hope the reader will not understand any- 
thing we have said as an apology for conten- 
tion, uncharitable ness or bigotry among chris- 
tians. We lament the existence of these things 
as sincerely as does any Campbellite, and will 
cheerfully co-operate with him in any measure 
that is likely to remove them ; but till he shall 
devise something more feasible than his denun- 
ciation of creeds and sects, we must beg to be ex- 
CUS6H. Indeed, the clamor against sectarianism, 
to which Mr. Campbell has given currency, sa- 
vors too much of the arrogant and selfish pre- 
tensions of the Papal See, and it is too much 
like the cant of the avowed enemies of Christi- 
anity, to be entitled to much respect. When 
he assumes that his party are not a sect, but the 
true and only church, and condemns all who do 
not subscribe to his views, as the followers pf 
anti-Christ, he does that which the Pope of 
Rome did long before he was born ; and when 
he harps upon the term sectarian, for the pur- 
pose of bringing the religious denominations in- 
to contempt, he is only walking in the footsteps 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 195 

of those whose labors have been devoted to the 
extirpation of Christianity. 

With Mr. Campbell arid his followers, the 
terms sect, and sectarian, are uniformly used in 
a bad sense by way of stigma and reproach. 
They are designed to set a mark upon those to 
whom they are applied, and to stamp their works 
with infamy. Let a man belong to any denom- 
ination except Mr. Campbell's, and his theolo- 
gical works, though written with the greatest 
ability, and manifesting every reasonable liber- 
ality of sentiment, will, by them, be denounced 
as worthless or suspicious. Such is their theory 
at least, and such their general practice. We 
were present, a few years ago, where several 
persons were conversing about Buck's Theolo- 
gical Dictionary. All spoke of it in terms of 
approbation, except a Campbellite bishop, who^ 
formed one of the company, and who, , afte^j 
hearing the opinions of the rest, observecf%ith 
a sneer, " Buck was a sectarian^ and the writ- 
ings of all such are entitled to little confidence." 
Now if those who thus stamp with the seal of 
reprobation whatever obtains the name of sec- 
tarian, were themselves free from that w^hich 
they condemn in others, their conduct would be 
less reprehensible ; but even then we should 
object to that sense in which they use the term 
in question. It is a misapplication. The word 
sect signifies nothing more than a number of in- 
dividuals associated in the belief of some com- 
mon doctrines. Among the ancient philoso- 
phers we read of the Academic, Stoic, and Ec- 



196 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

lectic sects, and among the Jews, of the sects 
of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But to none 
of these does the term sect imply a reproach, nor 
should it be so used in its application to christians. 

But suppose we waive this, and admit that a 
sectarian is a man worshiper, and that sectari- 
anism is worse than heathenism, and what then ? 
Will it follow that A. Campbell is the proper 
person to point the finger of scorn — to " cry 
havoc, and let slip the dogs of war," upon all 
whom he may choose to stigmatize as sectari- 
ans ? Not at all, unless we invert the rule of 
our Savior, " Let him who is without sin, cast 
the first stone." Reformation, like charity, 
should begin at home. We must cast the beam 
out of our own eye, before we can see clearly 
to remove the mote from our neighbor's. And 
we much doubt whether any man in America is 
plagued with a greater sectarian beam, than is 
Alexander Campbell; and if so, he is the last 
man who should condemn this in others. But 
his sectarianism is not the worst. A man may be 
a strict sectarian, and still manifest mildness, for- 
bearance, and liberality of feeling and judgment 
toward others. But this is not the course of Mr. 
Campbell ; for while he denounces creeds and 
sects as the promoters of an intolerant and per- 
secuting spirit, he manifests in himself, at least, 
as much of that spirit, as ought to fall to the lot of 
any good man, and much more than can be charg- 
ed upon those whom he so freely condemns. 

But in these remarks we may be presuming 
too much upon the reader's knowledge of facts; 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 197 

and he, in the absence of that knowledge, will, 
probably, charge us with judging harshly, and 
with arriving at an unwarrantable conclusion. 
In order, therefore, that he may judge for himself 
whether Mr. Campbell and his adherents, are, or 
are not infected with the worst kind of sectarian- 
ism, we deem it expedient to extend our remarks. 
Our Lord and Savior has authorized us to 
judge of men by their fruits ; and if the fruits 
of A. Campbell's reformation do not warrant 
the conclusion that he is an illiberal and uncom- 
promising sectarian, we are much mistaken. 
This opinion has been formed, and is now ex- 
pressed, with a perfect knowledge of the fact 
that he pleads " not guilty." We know that 
his professed object has been to break down the 
partition walls that separate christians, and to 
drive bigotry and intolerance from the earth ; 
and that some visionaries have really fancied 
him in a fair way to accomplish this, and bring 
all to see eye to eye. But have these hopes 
and promises been realized ? Have his labors 
diminished the number of sects, checked party 
strife, or increased the spirit of love and for- 
bearance among christians ? Just the reverse ; 
for he has, in his own followers, formed an ad- 
ditional sect, whose bigotry and intolerance are 
in a fair way to become proverbial ; and instead 
oi peace, he has deluged many towns and neigh- 
borhoods with the bitter waters of strife. — 
These are the well known fruits of the refor- 
mation / and if the mischief has been compa- 
ratively small, we owe it not to the forbearance 

r2 



198 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

or mercy of its propagators. " Divide and con- 
quer" has been their motto ; and the universal 
extermination of their opponents, their object. 
When an individual has been so weak as to 
leave some orthodox church and join them, they 
have considered it an achievement worth pub- 
lishing in capitals throughout the land ; and 
when they have succeeded in distracting and di- 
viding a church, it has been a subject of no lit- 
tle rejoicing. They have been heard to boast 
that they had destroyed the Baptist church in 
Kentucky,* and to declare their determination to 
effect the same in the Methodist and Presbyterian 
churches. Thus, instead of promoting the peace 
of Zion, and establishing " good will" upon the 
ruins of sectarianism, Mr. Campbell's labors have 
resulted in the production of a new sect, so intol- 
erant that their hand is against every man, and 
who, Nero like, glory in their works of desola- 
tion. 

It is, however, admitted, that a man's failure 
to accomplish what he proposes, is not always 
sufficient evidence that he desired such failure ; 
and hence, though a self styled reformer should 
not succeed in driving bigotry from the earth, 
we must not, from this circumstance, infer that 

* We are gratified to discover that this boast concern- 
ing the Baptist church was founded in mistake. For 
that church, though in some places for a time, apparently 
trammeled and divided by the spread of Campbellism, 
has since risen with increased strength, as we are inform- 
ed, and it is confidently believed that the Cam'pbeli fever 
will eventuate in her good% 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 199 

he is, himself, a bigot. But we maintain that 
the intolerant and selfish spirit of Mr. Camp- 
bell's party is the legitimate result of his prin- 
ciples and practice. From the time his system 
of operations began to assum.e an intelligible 
form, it has embodied some ingredients, as fo- 
reign from the spirit of toleration as were the 
principles that originated the Spanish Inquisi- 
tion. This may seem a hard saying, but we 
are fully convinced of its truth, and hope also 
to convince the reader, if he will only have pa- 
tience to hear us out. And yet, in some respects, 
Mr. Campbell has appeared even " fierce for 
moderation," and liberality toward the opinions 
of others. We recollect to have read several 
of his articles in the Millennial Harbinger, some 
four or five years ago, professedly designed to 
point out a way for the union of all the sects. 
This plan, according to present recollection, 
proposed that christians should cease to attach 
any importance to doctrines, and unite upon a 
belief of the facts of the New Testament, On 
this ground he announced his willingness to 
harmonize with Unitarians and Trinitarians, 
Jlrm,inians, Calvinists, Socinians, and Uni- 
versalists. "Let them," said lie, '' hold their 
opinions, but let them hold them as private pro- 
perty, and all will be well." Noav this, indeed, 
appears liberal enough, and doubtless some will 
consider it as going a little beyond the mark ; 
but with this we shall not, at present, concern, 
though we have no desire to amalgamate with 
Socinians or Universalists. Nor shall we dis- 



200 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

pute about the importance of believing the doc- 
trines as well as the facts of the gospel. The 
apostles speak of " good doctrine," of'' sound 
doctrine," and of "the doctrine that is accord- 
ing to godliness," while they warn us against 
being "carried about by every wind of doctrine." 
Here, then, Mr. Campbell seems at issue with 
the apostles, and we leave him to adjust the 
matter in the best manner he can. But we 
would ascertain how far the above proposition 
justifies him in his anti-sectarian pretensions, 
and professed liberality of sentiment. It says, 
it is true, that he considers some doctrines that 
have occasioned much controversy, not to be 
worth disputing about, and that they should be 
no bar to christian union and fellowship ; but 
does he extend the same liberality to all other 
doctrines contested among christians ? To 
test this matter we will suppose a case. Let 
the reader bear in mind that Mr. Campbell avows 
his willingness to unite with all who believe the 
gospel facts, whatever their opinions may be, 
provided they hold them as private property ; 
and in view of this declaration, we will sup- 
pose that a pious Presbyterian, tired of contro- 
versy, applies for admission into his commu- 
nion, or for the privilege of meeting him at the 
table of the Lord. The following dialogue, or 
something like it, would ensue : 

Campbell. Do you believe that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God ? 

nipplicant, I do. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 201 

C, Do you believe that he died for our sins, 
and rose again for our justification ? 

A. I do. 

C, Have you been immersed for remission 
of sins ? 

Ji, No : I was baptized in infancy. 

C. That is of no value ; you must be im- 
mersed, or we cannot receive you. 

A, Indeed ! Why, sir, you astonish me. 
I believe the facts of the New Testament as 
firmly as any man in your communion ; and I 
am so well convinced of the validity of my bap- 
tism, that I could not be immersed without do- 
ing violence to my conscience. But I hold my 
views of baptism as private property, having 
no wish to make them a condition of commu- 
nion, or to require others to adopt them. Sure- 
ly then, to be consistent with your avowed 
principles, you must receive me. 

(7. No sir. That matter has been already 
decided. You must stand aside, for until you 
are immersed, you cannot be a christian ; nor 
can we give you the least countenance as 
one. 

The consequence here is, that the applicant 
is unchristianized, and repulsed from what they 
term the Lord's table ; and for no other reason 
than his inability to think as does Mr. Camp- 
bell. And this intolerant principle lies at the 
very foundation of the system, and is carried 
out through all its operations, and hence some of 
its adherents have gone so far as to refuse to 
unite in prayer with those families that would 
9 * 



202 CAMPBELLTSM EXPOSED. 

not be immersed for remission of sins. Per- 
haps, though, Mr. Campbell considers immer- 
sion one of the gospel facts ; but a vast majority 
of the christian world think differently, and are 
wan-anted so to do, by the fact that the word is 
not to be found in the Bible. We have ever 
been ready to admit the sincerity of those who 
adhere to immersion as the only mode of bap- 
tism ; but after all, it is only their opinion, for 
the Scriptures do not inform us how the apos- 
tles baptized. They administered the ordinance 
"with water," but whether by sprinkling, pour- 
ing, or dipping, is at present unknov/n, and 
must forever remain so, unless the world should 
be favored with a new revelation. Therefore, 
when Mr. Campbell assumes immersion to be 
an unquestionable fact, recorded in the New 
Testament, he goes a little further than a mod- 
est man would be willing to venture ; and when 
he denounces those who cannot believe with 
him on tliis point, as vipers, hypocrites, and 
man- worshipers, and refuses to acknowledge 
them as the followers of Christ, he evinces the 
very same spirit of intolerance that established 
the Inquisition. " You must surrender your 
judgment and opinions into our hands," says 
the church of Rome, and so says Mr. Camp- 
bell. It is true, he cares not w^h ether we are 
Arians, Socinians, or Universalists ; in this he 
is very liberal in his commands ; but then, we 
must adopt his notions of the efficacy of bap- 
tism, and receive it according to his ipfie dixit, 
or he pronounces us ** unpardoned, and lost to 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 203 

all christian life and enjoyment." Very mod- 
erate indeed ! With much justice has an anon- 
ymous satirist represented him as saying, 

" I little care what men believe, 

Provided they my faith receive, 

And come to me, with me unite, ' 

And think my views and plans are right ; 

And swear allegiance to the water — 

As for the rest, 'tis little matter." 

This is the true state of the case. Profes- 
sing great deference to the opinions of others 
and an anxious desire for union, Campbellites, 
by their conduct, say to all the world, " You 
must come to us, believe with us, and let us 
immerse you ; and then we'll unite, and peace 
and love shall be the order of the day." This 
.certainly is an astonishing display of magna- 
nimity ! Just let us all turn Campbellites, and 
adopt their notions and usages, and they will 
graciously receive us, and admit us to partici- 
pate in their exalted privileges. Then, indeed, 
there would be no sects, for all would be con- 
solidated into one sect. But after all, unless 
we are much mistaken, any of us sectarians 
would be quite willing to destroy sectarianism 
on precisely the same principle. 

It is useless to pursue this view of the sub- 
ject much further. A child may see the gross 
absurdity involved in the anti-sectarian claims 
of Campbell and his followers. Indeed, they 
have more bigotry and less toleration, than in 
general pertain to those whom they condemn. 
For the latter, while they choose to worship God 



204 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

in their own way, are ready to acknowledge that 
they may be mistaken in their views ; and not 
having the vanity to suppose that Christianity 
can subsist in no form but that which precisely 
accords with their notions, they extend the 
hand of fellowship to their brethren of other 
denominations ; but the former will admit no 
possible error upon their part, and will have no 
fellowship with those who cannot, in consci- 
ence, submit to their arrogant claims and non- 
sensical absurdities. And these are the reno- 
vators of the age, the exclusive christians of the 
19th century ; without one particle of bigotry, 
intolerance, or sectarianism ; making loud pro- 
fessions of love, forbearance, and disinterested- 
ness, and yet denouncing all who do not believe 
with them, and virtually saying, " We are the 
whole and only church of Christ ; there is no 
salvation out -of our communion !" Monstrous 
presumption ! As well might the prince of 
darkness and father of lies claim to be the 
fountain of light, and the author of truth and 
goodness. 

The followers of Mr. Campbell professing to 
be guided by the New Testament alone, will 
not acknowledge any man as their leader, nor 
consent to be called Campbellites. And strange 
as it may appear, their disclaimers in relation 
to these matters, form no inconsiderable part of 
the " reformation." " Others," say they, *' are 
the followers of men. Methodists follow Wes- 
ley, Presbyterians, Calvin, and so of all secta- 
rians ; therefore, they are not the followers of 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 205 

Christ. But we receive no man's opinions, 
call no man master ; Paul and Peter are our 
teachers, and Christ alone our guide." — And 
hence to be called the followers of A. Campbell, 
they consider a reproach upon their character, 
and an insult to their dignity. But v/hy this 
sensitiveness ? If Mr. Campbell be, as they 
seem to believe, not only the po-odigy of the 
age, but " the greatest and best" among all the 
men who have visited the earth since the apos- 
tles left it, is it either sinful or discreditable to 
receive his instructions, and be called his fol- 
lowers ? — Certainly not, provided his instruc- 
tions comport with tlie precepts and spirit of 
the gospel. As professors of Christianity, it 
would undoubtedly be criminal for us to follow 
any man in doctrines or in practices, which we 
considered contrary to the Scriptures ; but not 
so, if after a careful examination we are con- 
vinced of their entire agreement with the letter 
and spirit of the Bible. If for fear of being call- 
ed the followers of John Wesley, we are bound 
to reject those views of the doctrines of Christ 
which he taught, though fully persuaded of 
their correctness, we have no alternative, but 
the most downright hypocrisy. For then must 
we reject what we believe, and receive what 
we do not. believe. In many instances, then, 
candor and honesty compel us to adopt the 
opinions of some uninspired man ; not, how- 
ever, as inspiration, but as expressing our own 
understanding of the doctrines of the Bible. 
And so far as we receive his opinions, we be- 
S 



206 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

come his followers. And where is the sin or 
shame of this ? Is it sinful to believe with great 
and good men — or disreputable to confess our- 
selves their followers ? If so, sin consists in the 
belief of the truth, and reproach in calling things 
by their right names. 

There is, however, but little difficulty in as- 
certaining the motives that induce the "reform- 
ers" to deny their proper name ; and while they 
almost idolize their leader, to refuse to acknowl- 
edge him as such. And we are sorry to say, 
that ambition and selfishness, seem to have 
more to do in this matter, than either moral or 
religious principles. We have no intention to 
'* bring a railing accusation" against them. Mr. 
Campbell and his followers may be entirely 
sincere. We hope they are. But it cannot be 
admitted that all who are sincere and honest in 
their professions, are as truly simple in their 
motives. ^ Some very sincere men are under 
the influence both of vanity and of ambition. 
It is difficult for even honest men always to un- 
derstand the motives that govern their actions, 
'' for the heart is deceitful." But whatever the 
motives that induce Campbellites to deny their 
name and their leader, the obvious tendency 
of these denials has been to dupe the unwary, 
and thereby to form a new party in religion, 
of which Mr. Campbell is the head ; and by 
which his teachers and evangelists, as subalterns 
under him, have obtained a little factitious no= 
toriety. When claiming to have no leader but 
our Lord and Savior, and charging Methodists, 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 207 

and others, with being the followers of men, 
they wish to make, and do make the impression 
upon ignorant minds, that those who follow 
men, and receive their opinions, cannot be the 
followers of Christ ; and that there is an essen- 
tial difference between Campbellites and those 
whom they denounce as man-worshipers, in re- 
ference to the confidence they place upon the 
opinions of uninspired men. And just so far 
as these impressions are produced, does dupli- 
city prevail over truth and candor. There is 
no discrepancy between receiving the opinions 
of men in their expositions of Scripture, and 
following Christ as our teacher and guide. Did 
those men set up their opinions as a substitute 
for, or in opposition to the Word of God, the 
case would, indeed, be different. But protes- 
tant commentators have not done this. After 
devoting years to the study of the' Scriptures, 
the commentator has only told us whaf he con- 
siders them to teach ; and after we have studied 
them carefully, and are convinced that his opi- 
nions are correct, honesty compels us to adopt 
them, and thus to follow him '' v/ho through 
faith and patience inherits the promises," while 
he and we follow Christ, who *' is all in all."' 
But still we shall be asked, " How can you be 
followers of Christ, and of uninspired men at 
the same time ? We would answer this ques- 
tion by another : — How can I be a citizen of 
the United States and of Kentucky at the same 
time? Do you saj^there is no difficulty in this, 
because the priiiciples of the state government 



208 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

are recognized in the federal constitution, upon 
which the union is based. Agreed ; and this 
may serve as an answer to the first question. 
There is no more difficulty in the one case, 
than in the other. 

But why should Campbellites be so anxious 
to unchristianize those who adopt the opinions 
of men, and become their followers ? In so do- 
ing, do they not condemn themselves ? Are 
they not as deeply involved in what they pro- 
nounce man-worship, as any of us ? Let us ex- 
amine the testimony of facts— they are stubborn 
things, and sometimes stand very much in the 
way of some men's professions. Mr. Camp- 
bell was once a Baptist ; and when he com- 
menced his *' reformxation," not only stood high 
among them as a man of talent, but to a con- 
siderable extent had their conlidence. This 
circumstance accounts for the fact that most of 
his early converts, whether teachers or private 
members, were proselytes from that church. 
And consequently, they had not only professed 
their belief in the doctrines of the church, but 
according to her requirements, had given in 
their experiences, and professed to be regener- 
ated by the Holy Spirit, before they were bap- 
tized. Before these could embrace the "re- 
formation," they had to change their opinions 
and discard their religious experiences. But 
how v/ere these chans:es effected? Bv the New 
Testament? Nay ; but by the "• Christian Bap- 
tist," and the " Millennial Harbinger," in which 
Mr. Campbell's views were gradually develop- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 209 

ed. Here they were taught to question, and 
then to deny a Divine call ^to the ministry ; to 
reject the influence of the Spirit in turning sin- 
ners to God ; to denounce and renounce creeds 
and sectarianism ; to believe that the Word and 
Spirit are synonymous ; to discard all christian 
experience previous to baptism ; and to teach 
that sins can only be pardoned through immer- 
sion. These, with many other absurdities, in 
direct opposition to their previously avowed 
sentiments, they readily received, and pronounc- 
ed the *' ancient gospel !" It will never do to 
say they gathered all this from the New Tes- 
tament ; because many of them had been mi- 
nisters of the Baptist church for years, of course 
they were familiar with the Scriptures, which 
they tell us are so plain that a child of ten years 
old may understand them. But during all that 
time they had made none of these discoveries. 
On the contrary, up to the moment that Mr. 
Campbell discovered his new light, ^nd invent- 
ed *' another gospel," they had contended for 
a call to the ministry, and for regeneration by 
the Holy Spirit, as necessarily preceding bap- 
tism, and often recited their own experiences in 
proof or confirmation of these doctrines. But 
no sooner did they find, that Mr. Campbell had 
no fellowship for such doctrines, than they re- 
nounced them too, and even renounced their 
own experiences — some of them marvelous 
enough in all conscience— which they had been 
in the habit of detailing for years, giving the 
time, place, and manner of tlieir conversion ; 

s2 



210 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

but now they discovered all this to be mysti- 
cism, enthusiasm, and nonsense. And yet 
these men tell us, they place no dependence on 
men's opinions — they are not the followers of 
Mr. Campbell. We doubt whether a more pal- 
pable absurdity has been attempted to be palm- 
ed upon the world, since the fable of transub- 
stantiation was invented. 

It is well known, that for the last eight or 
nine years Mr. Campbell has had a party of 
followers in the west, who have sat at his feet, 
and read his periodicals, till they have adopted 
his opinions as thoroughly as ever one man did 
those of another. His proclaimers have been 
the constant endorsers and regular reporters of 
his opinions. What he taught in his pamphlets, 
they conned over, and handed out to their hear- 
ers as the " ancient gospel ;" and thus every 
article of their creed has been derived from him.. 
It is true, that some of them have occasionally 
missed the track. Whether this was owing to 
their inability to comprehend him, or to his 
having been favored with some new light vary- 
ing from the revelation of the preceding month, 
we know not ; but in such cases, we believe, 
they have manifested every reasonable respect 
for their master, by tacking about, and pursu- 
ing the right course so soon as he has pointed 
it out. After having witnessed their servility 
in copying the sayings and doings of their lea- 
der, some have imagined that he could write 
nothing too absurd for them to swallow. An 
old gentleman once remarked, " If Mr. Camp- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 211 

bell were to declare that eating rye straw would 
take men to heaven, his followers would try to 
do it." We shall not endorse this opinion ; we 
think it somewhat doubtful. But if there be a 
sect in America that follow their leader more 
closely than Mr. Cam.pbeirs party endeavor to 
follow him, we have yet to make the discovery. 
This we do know, that many have evinced a de- 
votedness to his opinions, almost justifying the 
conclusion that they consider him infallible ; for 
whatever he has written, they have appeared 
ready to receive and pronounce gospel truth, 
though in direct opposition to their previously 
avowed sentiments. In confirmation of this, 
we could relate a number of circumstances, 
some of which came under our own notice. 
Take the following as a specimen : When the 
first extra number of the Millennial Harbinger, 
developing fully Mr. Campbell's method of re- 
mitting sins through immersion, was published, 
a somewhat humorous gentleman, in a village 
in this state, got hold of it and read it before 
it had been circulated among his Campbellite 
neighbors. Resolving to try an experiment, he 
put the pamphlet in his pocket, and walked to 
a shop, where the " reformers" of the village 
were in the habit of meeting to enlighten each 
other ; and finding several of them together, he 
listened awhile to their conversation, and then 
with seeming carelessness, remarked, " I un- 
derstand that Mr. Campbell has come out plain- 
ly and declared immersion alone to be the act 
of turning to God." They at once replied, 



212 CAMPBELLISM- EXPOSED. 

*' This is another sectarian misrepresentation — 
Mr. Campbell says no such thing." " But," 
said the gentleman, '' suppose he should say 
this, would you still adhere to him ?" " No," 
said they, " if he were to take this ground, we 
could not go with him ; for the New Testament 
teaches no such doctrine." The way being 
thus prepared, the extra was produced, and se- 
veral sentences read, the last of which was, 
*' Immersion alone was that act of turning to 
God." The '' reformers" were silent for a 
moment ; they took the pamphlet, turned to the 
title page, it was really the Millennial Harbin- 
ger, published by A. Campbell ; they turned 
back to the passage that had been read, re-read 
it, mused a while longer, and at last one re- 
marked, " Why, this is just what I always be- 
lieved," and so said they all. Now let not the 
reader be startled at this inconsistency, and 
charge them with falsehood. They were, we 
verily believe, honest men ; but so blindly in- 
fatuated with iheir leader, that he conducted 
them whithersoever he chose, without their be- 
ing aware of their mental servitude, or of the 
ridiculous attitudes in which it was placing 
them. And although we do not suppose that 
every Campbellite has manifested the same 
blind obedience, we do believe the above is a 
pretty fair specimen of the general devotion of 
that party, to the views of their leader. The 
Alpha and the Om.ega of their creed came from 
his pen. With some truths which they might 
have learned from the Bible, he has taught 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 213 

them many errors which' they never did, and 
never could have gathered from that source. 
And while they have hesitated to express an 
opinion upon doctrines in dispute upon which 
he had not pronounced, we have generally found 
them ready to receive his opinions, so soon as 
they were made known, and incorporate them 
as a part of the " ancient gospel." With these 
facts before him, the reader may determine 
whether they are, or are not the followers of 
A. Campbell. 

Connected with this view of the subject is 
the use of party names. We have previously 
remarked that the *' reformers" refuse to be 
called Campbellites, and consider the name a 
reproach ; but since they adopt his peculiar 
views, and arrange themselves under the ban- 
ner he has set up, is it not clear that this is their 
legitimate name ? '' No," says Barton W. 
Stone, " for this would- argue that the parties 
in the Corinthian churcih should have been call- 
ed Paulites and Peterites, which the apostle 
condemned." But really, we must protest a- 
gainst placing "Mr. Campbell, or any other un- 
inspired man, with Paul and Peter. We had 
suspected, even before we learned, that one of 
the " reformers" had prayed the Lord to bless 
Mr. Campbell, '' the second Redeemer ;'^ that 
some of them considered him a little superior 
to the apostles ; but with due deference to their 
partialities we must demur to crowning him 
with any such honors. Paul and Peter did not 
preach to explain what they considered the 



214 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

New Testament to teach. They were inspir- 
ed, and as to doctrines, spoke the same things, 
being moved by the Holy Ghost. Their doc- 
trines could not have raised different parties, 
because their doctrines did not differ ; conse- 
quently, parties taking their names, must have 
based their existence upon personal partialities, 
which would, indeed, have been a species of 
man- worship. Their business was to establish 
Christianity, and furnish the church v/ith the 
doctrines of Christ for future generations. But 
now the case is altered. Christianity is estab- 
lished, the New Testament completed, and the 
name of Christ, so well known in the earth, 
that all his followers are called christians as a 
matter of course. Christian teachers do not 
now come, as did the aposdes, to make known 
the will of God to man ; but, according to their 
understanding of it, to expound that will as pre- 
viously given. In doing which, they arrive at 
conclusions somewhat different ; and hence dif- 
ferent sects and names. And then, here comes 
Mr. Campbell, differing, not more from other 
sectarians, than from Jesus Christ and the 
apostles ; and his followers refuse to be called 
Campbellites, because there were no Paulites 
and Cephasites in the Corinthian church. Be- 
fore this argument can have any weight, they 
must prove that their leader sustains the same 
relation, to the church and the world, that the 
apostles did. When this is done we shall ad- 
mit that the position may be tenable. 

After all, we expect to hear it said, '* Your 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSEP. 215 

party names show that you are not Christ's ; 
for how can you be christians, while you are 
called Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians ^ 
This kind of stuff we have frequently heard, 
and are aware that it has had some influence in 
making proselytes to Campbellism, though we 
can scarcely conceive it possible that it could 
afl^ect any but weak minds. " Fll prove,," 
said a certain notorious " reformer," " that you 
are not a christian." '' Indeed," said the per- 
son addressed, " where is your proof?" '' Why, 
you are a Methodist, and can have no claims to 
the name of christian." " Very well," replied 
the other, ''but by the same argument I will 
prove that your leader is not a man. Is not 
his name Campbell ?" " Well, what of that ?" 
*' Only, sir, that as your own position will al- 
low him but one name, he can have no right to 
the appellation of Campbell, and to that of man 
at the same time." The " reformer" was silent, 
and well he might be, for unquestionably the 
argument was as good in the latter case as in 
the former. As men multiplied, it became ne- 
cessary, for the sake of distinction, to give 
them family names ; and the same cause produc- 
ed a like result in the church of Christ. But 
while the whole human family are known by 
the general name of man, there is no inconsis- 
tency in distinguishing them by the appellations 
of their nations or families ; nor does it involve 
the least difficulty to apply to each christian 
sect that name by, which custom has designated 



216 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

it, while all are kncwn by the universal name 
of christian. 

But is it possible that those who make all 
this noise about names, can be so ignorant as 
not to see their inconsistency ? If they called 
themselves Christians, and nothing else, their 
position, though still untenable, would appear 
much more graceful. But the truth is, they 
are not agreed among themselves, upon this 
point ; and hence we find them giving currency 
to different names, some of which are as foreign 
from the sanctions of Scripture, as those of any 
other sectarians. No doubt the reason of this 
is, that Mr. Campbell has been rather at a loss 
to ascertain what name would please him best. 
Some years ago, he informed them that he 
would prefer the name of Christian, but for the 
fact that it had been prostituted to sectarian 
purposes. We believe he then hinted some- 
thing about their taking the name of Disciples, 
also that of " Reformers ;" but did not come 
out fully, or determine upon either. However 
this may be, we do know that his followers 
have had some difficulty in finding out their 
own name ; that some have decided to be called 
Reformers, and others. Disciples ; while that 
portion that had been inducted into the '* reform- 
ation" from the old stock of Newlightism, have 
generally preferred the name of Christians. But 
amid all this the common consent of surround- 
ing spectators has dubbed them with the cog- 
nomen of their founder and leader, their legi- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 217 

timate and proper name, and from this decision 
there is no appeal. 

We can by no means submit to the task of 
pursuing this topic further. What other names 
beside those mentioned above may be current 
among them, we know not, nor is it important. 
Upon this subject, as well as upon all those 
points of doctrine, upon which the Bishop of 
Bethany has not come out, nothing is settled — 
nothing is tangible. Nor, indeed, have we any 
assurance that a solitary article of the Bishop's 
creed is permanently fixed. His course here- 
tofore, has been the antipodes of consistency. 
That man who has veered round through every 
point of the compass, from frigid Antinomian- 
ism to semi-pelagianism, may certainly be sus- 
pected of a liability to change again ; and espe- 
cially when he professes to have no written 
creed. But the party that is headed by such a 
leader have one advantage. They can fly where 
they please, and thus evade responsibility. We 
never know where to find them. It is true, if 
we should have read the last number of the 
Millennial Harbinger, we may know how to 
take them to-day, but we can have no assurance 
of finding them in the same attitude a month 
hence ; inasmuch as it is more than probable, 
that the next number will come surcharged with 
some new light, diverse from that which pre- 
ceded. And these are the persons who point 
the finger of scorn at their brethren, and cry 
out creeds, sectarianism, man-worship ^ who 
unchristianize the world, and make their boast 
10 T 



218 CAMPBELLISxM EXPOSED. 

of an exclusive knowledge of the gospel. With 
little hesitation, we venture to prognosticate, 
that not a few of them will hold on their way 
until they have cast away the last tattered rem- 
nant of the " faith delivered to the saints." — 
No distant day may see them enrolled upon the 
annals of infidelity, as beacons of warning to 
all who are beginning to worship the fond con- 
ceits of their own minds, or those of their 
leader's. This is what we fear ; not what we 
desire. We would fain hope— nay, we do hope 
better things of many of them. Some we be- 
lieve are simple hearted, sincere, and not des- 
titute of piety. Such we sincerely pity. They 
have been bewildered and led astray ; and may 
we not indulge the hope that they are not des- 
tined to '* wax worse and worse ;" but to be 
brought to think upon their ways, and to turn 
their feet again to the path of the Divine Tes- 
timonies ? 



i 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 219 



CHAPTER VII. 

CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 

Unchristian sneers of Mr. Campbell on this subject — a 
call defined--evangelical christians substantially agreed 
on this point — the true call lays no claims to inspi- 
ration or miraculous gifts — such a call possible — ne- 
cessary — prevailed in the primitive church — and has 
not ceased — objections answ^ered — mischievous ten- 
dency of Mr. Campbell's doctrine. 

We have commenced a new subject, but de- 
sign to despatch it in less time than has been de- 
voted to either of the preceding topics. Inde- 
pendent of the pending controversy, the subject 
of the ministerial call is one of deep, absorbing 
interest to thousands, if not to christians univer- 
sally ; and we hope that some remarks upon it 
may be profitable in more ways than one. 

In reference to this matter, we believe that 
Mr. Campbell has done much injury to the cause 
of Christianity. Upon the call to the ministry, 
we read various articles from his pen, some 
years ago, but made no extracts ; and having at 
present, no access to his writings, w^e shall not 
be able to state his views in his own words. It 
is knowm, however, that here he, professedly 
stands in opposition to the christian world. Of 
this, there can be no doubt, upon the mind of 
any one who has been conversant with the writ- 
ings of Mr. Campbell, the harangues of his pro- 



220 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED 

claimers, or the operations of his ''reformation." 
The sneering manner in which they have uni- 
formly treated this subject, and their constant 
and reckless denunciation of the " called and 
sent," cannot but have convinced every attentive 
observer, that they profess to stand in direct op- 
position to those who claim a Divine call to the 
ministry. The truth of this statement-^their 
professing to occupy an opposite position to the 
''called andsent"-Campbellites themselves, will 
not deny. Indeed they cannot ; for it forms one 
article of their creed, was issued from their 
head quarters, and the world knows, they have 
universally practiced upon it. This being suffi- 
cient for our present purpose, we proceed. 

Upon this subject, as well as upon many oth- 
ers, there may be some diversity of opinion 
among evangelical christians ; but they are gen- 
erally, and perhaps entirely agreed, that the pre- 
rogative of selecting the ministers of the church 
belongs to God. That this was the case under 
the former dispensation, none will question. 
Aaron, his sons, and-the whole tribe of Levi, 
were, by Divine appointment, consecrated to the 
priestly office ; and Moses, David, and all the 
prophets derived their authority to declare the 
counsels of the Alniighty from the same source. 
We discover the same principle in operation at 
the opening of the gospel dispensation. The 
first disciples w^ere called by our Lord in person, 
and by himself commissioned to preach the gos- 
pel, fir^ to the Jews, and then to the whole 
world. And subsequently, St. Paul, though in 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 221 

a different manner, was called and sent by the 
same authority. With regard to this, we have 
no controversy, even with Campbellites. The 
point at issue is, whether the Abnighty exercises 
the same prerogative in calling men to the min- 
istry now, that he did in the days of the apostles. 
We believe he does ; but before we enter upon 
the proof, it may be necessary to state what we 
mean by said call. 

This may be simply defined as a conviction 
of duty. The subject of it beholds the world 
lying in wickedness, sees sinners carelessly 
pursuing the road -to ruin, and becomes anxious- 
ly desirous of their salvation. And if to this be 
added, a firm persuasion that duty requires him 
to warn them of their danger, and invite them 
to the Savior of sinners ; and if this impression 
be such as to create restlessness and a sense of 
guilt, when pursuing any ordinary occupation, 
to the exclusion of the work of the ministry, it 
is presumable he is called to this work. All 
this, however, is evidence only to himself. 
Som.ething further is necessary to satisfy the 
church of the reality of his call, and thus to 
open the way for his engaging in the work. 
It would certainly be dangerous to the welfare 
of any church, for her to give indiscriminate 
license for all to preach who profess to consid- 
er it their duty ; for some of these may be labor- 
ing under a delusion of their own imaginations, 
and totally disqualified for the work ; while oth- 
ers may be hypocrites, and fit only to become 
ministers of Satan. Hence, all churches have 
T 2 



230 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

Lord Jesus could have given the blind man 
sight by a word, but he chose to make use of 
clay and spittle, and then to send him to the 
pool of Siloam that he might wash and see. 
But the use of these means did not render the 
cure any the less the effect of Divine power ; 
nor does the intervention of means, in fixing 
upon the mind an impression of the duty of 
preaching the gospel, militate in the least 
against the idea that the Holy Ghost is the 
prime mover and instigator to that work. 

And is there not, in the very nature of things, 
a necessity for the appointment of the ministers 
of the church, by Divine authority ? This ne- 
cessity certainly did exist in former times, and 
appointments were made accordingly. Hence, 
the Levites were consecrated to the duties of 
the sanctuary, under the Mosaic dispensation ; 
and hence, the apostles were commissioned to 
preach the gospel and administer the ordinan- 
ces at the opening of the christian era. These 
appointments were^ all _by Divine authority. 
And is the church of God of less consequence 
under the christian dispensation, than it was 
under the Jewish ? Does it not require as 
much of his fostering care now as it did in the 
days of Paul and Peter 1 Men are still requir- 
ed, whose business it shall be to preach the 
gospel and administer the sacraments — work to 
which the apostles were specially appointed by 
the Head of the church — and surely we are au- 
thorized to infer that the saHie wisdom and au- 
thority are still necessary in selecting and ap- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 231 

pointing those who are to discharge these im- 
portant duties. 

That this principle prevailed in the church 
during the time that the inspired writers have 
furnished us with its history, will not admit of 
a doubt. Subsequently to the commissioning 
of the eleven, Paul and Barnabas received au- 
thority from the same source, and the Holy 
Ghost required them to be separated for the 
work whereunto he had called them. The el- 
ders of Ephesus received their commissions in 
like manner ; for St. Paul commanded them 
*' to feed the church of God," over which the 
Holy Ghost had made them, ovei^seers. And 
we may safely infer that all the early preachers, 
whether apostles, elders, deacons, or teachers, 
derived their authority from the same Mmighty 
power. This, indeed, cannot be disputed. 
Even Campbellites adiiiit the Divine authority 
of the apostles ; but tell us that that authority 
was not extended beyond the first age of Chris- 
tianity. But ihis remaiiis to be proved, and if 
it v/ere established, it Ivould prove too much ; 
for the authority to administer baptism, being 
inseparably connected v/ith the call to the min- 
istry, the latter cannot be disannulled, without 
abrogating the former. The Savior after his 
resurrection, said to his disciples, " Go ye, 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost;" and in thus commission- 
ing them to preach his gospel, he instituted the 
ordinance of christian baptism, and authorised 



232 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

and commanded them to administer it. It is, 
therefore, clear that the call to. the ministry and 
the right to baptize, are so united that they 
must stand or fall together ; and hence that ar- 
gument which goes to confine the ministerial 
call to the apostolic age, will have the same ef- 
fect upon the authority to administer baptism, 
and prove that the world has had neither 
preachers nor ordinances for the last seventeen 
centuries. 

We are aware that Campbellism proceeds 
upon the supposition that every convert made 
by the apostles, was permitted to turn baptizer. 
But this is assumption, and not proof. Mr. 
Csimpbell, indeed, has labored hard to prove it: 
but with all the tortures to which his ingenuity 
has subjected the sub til ties of sophistry, he has 
not been able to adduce from the New Testa- 
ment, either precept or example in favor of 
baptism by laymen. Nor is this at all aston- 
ishing, for that book contains no evidence that 
any individual, not called of God to the work 
of the ministry, ever did administer baptism. 
Mr. Campbell may presume and suppose what 
he pleases, and his followers may assist him 
with their own imaginings for aught vre care ; 
but a thousand of their suppositions will not 
make one Bible truth. The proof is what we 
require ; and that can never be given. But on 
the contrary, we have certain knowledge, not 
only that the authority to preach and baptize, 
was originally given by the great Head of the 
church to the same individuals, but that this 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 233 

practice continued down to the close of the New 
Testament history of the church ; and that we 
have no conclusive evidence of baptism having 
been performed by laymen, till that darkness and 
superstition began to overspread the church, 
which gave birth to Mr. Campbell's fundamen- 
tal error that baptism is essential to salvation. 
We, may, therefore, safely infer that the notion 
that all christians have equal authority to 
administer the ordinances, has no other founda- 
tion than mere human opinion. And hence, 
we repeat, that any argument which shall prove 
the call to the ministry to have ceased with the 
fipostles, will prove that all authority to bap- 
tize shared the same fate ; and as baptism is 
the initiating rite, it must follow that there is at 
present, no visible church upon earth. 

The limits assigned to the investigation of 
the present topic, admonish us that further re- 
marks in proof of the perpetuation of a Divine- 
ly constituted ministry to preach the Gospel, 
and administer the ordinances of the church, 
must be suspended. And indeed, we consid- 
er the proof already given, as abundantly suffi- 
cient ; for though we occupy the affirmative of 
the question, the circumstances of the case are 
such as to throw the necessity of furnishing 
proof entirely upon our opponents. We have 
seen that a divinely constituted ministry did 
once exist— that the original apostles and after 
them Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Philip, and 
the elders of Ephesus, and in short, all the 
preachers and teachers of the apostolic age, 

u2 



234 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

were called of God, and by him appointed to 
the work ; and in the absence of all proof to the 
contrary, we are bound to infer that such a 
ministry is still continued in the church. It 
remains, then for Mr. Campbell to prove the 
negative of this ; to show from Scripture that 
the Almighty has ceased to appoint his minis- 
ters, and surrendered that prerogative which he 
exercised in the first age of the church. And 
until this is done, we shall consider the raillery 
and satire with which he and his satellites are 
in the habit of honoring the " called and sent ;" 
and all their assertions and presumings that the 
Holy Ghost has called no man to preach, since 
the aposdes left the world, as abortive and in- 
significant, in view of the question at issue, as 
was the weight of the conceited gnat upon the 
horn of the ox. 

It only remains now for us to examine a few 
objections or arguments that have been urged 
against a Divine call to the ministry. 

1. Such a call is said to be unreasonable, be- 
cause those who profess to be the subjects of it, 
are not only destitute of the means of convinc- 
ing others, but sometimes are in doubts them- 
selves, whether in reality they have received it. 
The first member of this objection can have 
no bearing upon the question, because the fact 
assumed is not true. He who possesses grace, 
gifts, and talents for usefulness, who lives a 
blameless, holy life, and is '* apt to teach," 
who "desires" the *' good work" of a minis- 
ter, and in whose hands ** the sword of the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 235 

Spirit" is made '' the power of God unto sal- 
vation," is not destitute of the means of con- 
vincing others of the Divine reality of his call. 
For these signs and qualifications necessarily 
appertain to the ministerial character as set 
forth in the Scriptures, and can only attend 
upon him whom God has qualified for the 
work. Nor are we warranted to believe that 
any man can thus preach the gospel without 
this Divine authority. Lecture and harangue 
the people, as do Mr. Campbell's proclaimers, 
he may ; but to preach " Christ Jesus, and him 
crucified," " in demonstration of the Spirit, 
and with power," so that sinners are pierced 
to the heart, and brought to experience the 
power of saving grace, is wholly beyond his 
ability, and belongs to him only who has re- 
ceived '' power from on high." And he whose 
life and labors manifest the presence of this 
*'holy unction," will ever carry conviction to 
the minds of at least a part of his hearers, that 
his authority is Divine. 

Of the truth of the second part of the objec- 
tion, we have no doubt. Gospel ministers may 
sometimes be in doubt as to the reality of their 
call. But we shall not admit that this is any 
argument against a Divinely constituted minis- 
try ; for on the contrary, it appears in perfect 
accordance with man's probationary state, in 
which it may at times be needful for him to be 
*' in heaviness through manifold temptations," 
and in which God may lead him *' by a way 
that he knows not." That the child of God, 



236 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

in some dark moment, may seriously question 
his acceptance, cannot admit of a rational doubt. 
To this, we are aware Mr. Campbell demurs, 
and assumes that christians may know they are 
washed from their sins so long as they remem- 
ber their immersion ; but as this method of 
proving our adoption is man's work — ^being 
wholly unknown to the New Testament — it 
only shows the folly of that system of which 
it forms a conspicuous part. We therefore re- 
peat that the christian may, at times, be led to 
question whether he has been "born again;" 
but does this fact prove that there is no such 
thing as the new birth ? Not at all. And yet 
it might be urged in proof of this, with as much 
plausibility, as can the fact that ministers may 
have doubts of the reality of their call, to prove 
that God has never called them. The truth is, 
that in either case the evidence of its reality, 
may, in some instances, be attained by slow 
degrees, and in point of clearness, may not on- 
ly differ in different individuals, but owing to 
constitutional temperament, and other causes, it 
may at different times vary in the same indi- 
vidual. But still the work is of God. It is 
his Spirit that witnesses to the believer, that he 
is born from above, and it is the Holy Ghost 
that moves the christian minister to preach the 
gospel. And whatever doubts may arise in ei- 
ther case, they will generally be removed by 
searching the Scriptures, self-examination, and 
fervent prayer. In proportion as the christian 
walks worthy of his vocation, and advances in 



CAMPBELHSM EXPOSED. 237 

holiness, will his doubts and fears decrease ; 
and just so with the minister of the gospel in 
reference to his call to the work of an evan- 
gelist. 

2. But in the next place we are told, that it 
is absurd to suppose that God would call such 
ignorant and illiterate men, a« are many of the 
professedly *' called and sent," to teach others 
the way of salvation. We shall by no means 
contend that all who profess a Divine call to the 
ministry, are in reality thus called. There 
were false teachers even in the apostles' days, 
and there are such still. Some, from sinister 
motives may have been led to assume the live- 
ry of heaven, while others, in engaging in the 
work, may be honestly mistaken; but in both 
cases, they lack the most essential qualification, 
and their deficiencies will ultimately be discov- 
ered by others, if not by themselves. And 
whether such be ignorant or learned in refer- 
ence to literary attainments, the result is the 
same. Nor shall we offer any apology for ig- 
norance in the christian minister, by supposing 
that the Almighty consecrates stupidity and 
blindness of mind to his service. In the first 
age of Christianity, we are aware that he 
'/'chose the weak things of this world to con- 
found the mighty," but this was in the day of 
miracles ; and though he may still, in some in- 
stances, act upon the same principle, we have 
no reason to believe that this principle prevails 
in the present day, to the extent that it did in 
the infancy of Christianity. Ignorance and 



238 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

blindness of mind are the effects of sin ; and 
as the minister wars with sin, he should espe- 
cially labor to free his own mind from its para- 
lyzing effects. In short, he should, he must 
have a theological education. But on this sub- 
ject we must needs explain. By the education 
spoken of, we do not mean an academic initia- 
tion into scientific theology ; nor will we admit 
that the real usefulness of ministers bears a 
general sort of proportion to their classical at- 
tainments, or to the external advantages they, 
may have enjoyed ; though such attainments, 
so far from being disreputable, or unworthy the 
attention of the minister, may greatly assist him 
in his work. The education to which we re- 
fer, is nothing else than a comprehensive 
knowledge of the Bible — a thorough acquaint- 
ance with the scheme of salvation through a 
crucified Savior, as set forth in the Script^f es. 
In addition, we care not how much literary ^nd 
scientific knowledge may be possessed. 'Bhe 
more, the better, if judiciously used to advance 
the great object of preaching — but still jv^th- 
out these, the minister may be extensiveljr use- 
ful in his vocation. Let him be taught -in ^'Ihe 
school of Christ, and by industry and intetise 
application, by " watchings, fastings, andtribu^' 
lations," by faith and spirituality, and indiffer- 
ence to the world, and above all, by fervent, 
effectual prayer, have acquired a deep and ex- 
tensive knowledge of Revealed Truth ; and 
this is all the theological education which we 
consider absolutely indispensable. But isthero 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 239 

any justice in designating such a one as an ig- 
norant man ?" By no means. It is true his 
literary acquirements may extend but little be- 
yond the bare competency to read the English 
Bible ; and yet on theological questions, and 
on experimental and practical religion, he may 
be fully competent to instruct even Alexander 
Campbell. 

The objection now under consideration, has 
been very current among the teachers of Mr. 
Campbell's gospel. Nor is this at all marvel- 
ous, for their leader set the example by ridi- 
culing the idea that men so destitute of literary 
attainments as to have no theoretical knowl- 
edge of their mother tongue, should profess to 
be called of God to preach, and his followers 
of course had to echo the same sentiment. We 
once heard a proclaimer laboring upon this 
.pgint, who took occasion to observe that he 
pitied the ignorant enthusiast, who could stand 
in the pulpit and say, " Wo is me if I preach 
not the gospel;" and we recollected to have 
seen the same proclaimer some years before, in 
the pulpit as a Baptist preacher, and to have 
heard hijn say, *' Necessity is laid upon me ; 
yea, wo is me if I preach not the gospel." 
And we could but think that he had taken an 
excellent method to convince the public of his 
want of consistency. Formerly he averred in 
the most positive manner, that God had called 
him to preach, and now he as positively declar- 
ed that he never received any such call ; and 
surely the man who could thus contradict him- 



240 CAMFBELLISM EXPOSED* 

self, should not be astonished if an intelligent 
community should consider him as either de- 
fective in understanding, or in point of moral 
honesty. Nor is this the only inconsistency 
involved in the objection before us ; for even if 
it was plausible, it comes with very ill grace 
from those who urge it. However deficient in 
point of intelligence some of the professedly 
" called and sent" may be, they have certainly 
not mxOnopolized all the ignorance of the day. 
The teachers of Campbellism, numbers con- 
sidered, have at least an equal proportion of this 
commodity. On this point we have been an 
attentive observer some years, and should it 
ever be found expedient to immortalize that de- 
nomination of professed christians, whose teach- 
ers possess the lowest amount of literary and 
theological information, we hazard nothing in 
saying that Campbellites will stand a good 
chance to live for ever. If then, that want of 
intelligence which they charge upon the minis- 
ters of Christ, be such as to disqualify them 
for preaching, and thus to render their call 
questionable, must not the teachers of the *' an- 
cient gcipel," with the same amount of igno- 
rance, be equally incompetent ? Or does it re- 
quire a less amount of information to qualify a 
man to become a teacher of religion, without a 
Divine call, than with one ? Let the reader 
judge. 

3. In the third place, a special call to the 
ministry is declared to be incredible, because 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 241 

of the contradictory doctrines of those who 
equally profess to have received it. 

This objection is pretty much of a piece with 
another statement from the same somce. Mr. 
Caffipbell has said, and no doubt all of his pro- 
claimers have reiterated it, that 7//e preachers 
the various sects preach differ C7it gospets, 
ut neither this assertion, nor the above objec- 
tion, can be received without considerable 
abatement. Arminiansand Calvinists, Church- 
men and Dissenters, with all the various de- 
nominations that are considered evangelical, not 
only preach the same gospel, but so far as its 
essential features are concerned they preach 
the same doctrines. "While they differ con- 
cerning church government, external ceremo- 
nies, the extent of the atonement, and other 
things of less importance, so far as to justi- 
fy their sectional divisions, they all unite in 
proclaiming the same Lord and Savior, " God 
manifest in the flesh," and the merits of his 
death, as the only ground for the sinner's hope 
of pardon, and justification by faith, and regen- 
eration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, 
and in ascribing all the glory of man's salva- 
tion alone to God. Hence the different sects so 
much abused by Mr. Campbell, preach substan- 
tially the same fundamental doctrines, and en- 
tirely the same gospel, while he it is that stands 
aloof, differing from them all, and proclaiming 
*' another gospel." And thus Mr. Campbell 
and his little party are found arrayed upon one 
Bide, and against them the fearful odds of the 
11 V 



242 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

Bible, and all the evangelical sects of Protest- 
ant Christendom. 

But still the above objection is urged, and 
we are asked, '' If men are called to preach, 
why do they not speak the same language, and 
" hold forth precisely the same doctrines ?" The 
reason is obvious — they are not inspired. If 
they were inspired to inform the world of doc- 
trines not previously revealed, we might ex- 
pect an entire unity, so far as those doctrines 
were concerned ; but even then they might dif- 
fer in reference to other matters. Such differ- 
ences in reality obtained among the apostles. 
Paul withstood Peter to the face, insisting that 
he was to blame ; and Paul and Barnabas dif- 
fered in judgment and separated. And though 
they preached " one Lord, one faith, and one 
baptism," they expressed themselves in lan- 
guage and manner so different, that we will 
venture to say, the most absurd tenet that has 
been countenanced by any respectable denomi- 
nation of christians in modern times, may find 
as much apparent support in some isolated 
texts of their writings, as can the leading fea- 
tures of Mr. Campbell's system in any portion 
of the Scriptures. But neither the various 
methods used by the apostles in detailing those 
doctrines in which they were perfectly agreed, 
nor those differences in judgment that actually 
existed among them, furnish any reason to 
question their inspiration ; and certainly the 
difference of views among ministers of the 
present day, upon points of minor importance, 



I 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 243 

not aftecting the sure foundation, can be no evi- 
dence that they are not sent of God. 

4. Another objection to a Divinely consti- 
tuted ministry, is the absence of miraculous 
gifts. — " You say that God has called you to 
preach," says Mr. Campbell, *' work a mira- 
cle, and we will believe you." 

This objection, in some sense, forms the ba- 
sis of all the others ; and, no doubt, is the prin- 
cipal source of error in leading to a rejection 
of the ministerial call. To confound the work 
of the minister with the working of miracles, 
or to suppose that the preaching of the gospel, 
and miraculous gifts and powers, were neces- 
sarily united, and always appertained to the 
same individuals, even in the days of the apos- 
tles, is assuming what cannot be proved from 
the New Testament ; for on the contrary, that 
book obviously leads to a different conclusion. 
Both women and men, ordinary members of 
the church, in some instances, prophesied and 
were favored with miraculous, spiritual gifts, 
though never called or s-et apart to the work of 
the ministry. These visible and extraordinary 
manifestations of the power of God, were, it is 
true, first imparted to the apostles, but did not 
necessarily constitute a part of their call to 
preach, being given to convince the world of 
the truth of that system which they were in- 
spired to make known. And as this object 
could be advanced wherever those '* signs and 
wonders" were seen in the converts to that sys- 
tem, it is not only reasonable that they should 



244 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

be imparted to others than the apostles, but 
clear, from some parts of St. Paul's epistles, 
that spiritual gifts, including the power of work- 
ing miracles, were actually conferred on many 
of the primitive christians. Seeing, then, that 
these extraordinary gifts, while they continued 
in the church, were not confined to the apos- 
tles and preachers, and did not exclusively ap- 
pertain to the ministerial character, it is certain- 
ly very unreasonable to argue that the want of 
such powers, in preachers of the present day, 
is evidence that they are not called to the work. 
The same argument, if we are not much mis- 
taken, would be equally as successful in prov- 
ing that there is not at present, one on earth, 
who believes in Christ ; for he expressly de- 
clared that "these signs" — casting out devils, 
speaking with new tongues, and healing the 
sick — '' should follow them that believe, ^^ 

At the first propagation of the gospel, mira- 
cles were necessary ; not to qualify the minis- 
ter to deliver his message, but to convince his 
hearers of its truth. But there was no Jl*«Qg^- 
sity for their continuance beyond that j^^nOd 
which saw the Revelation of Jesus Christ com- 
pleted, and his religion established by evidence 
that rendered it unreasonable to doubt. Hence, 
St. Paul, in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthi- 
ans, plainly declared that the time should come, 
when the gift of tongues and of prophesying 
should " cease and vanish away," and when 
this period arrived, those extraordinary means 
of spreading the gospel were taken from the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 245 

church ; hence, the necessity for miracles ceased 
with the establishment of Christianity ; but the 
necessity of evangelizing the world by the or- 
dinary means of preaching the gospel, did not 
then cease, nor can it while there remains an 
impenitent sinner upon earth. It is, therefore, 
certain that the calling of men to the ministry 
has been, and must be perpetuated. 

5. The last objection or argument we shall 
notice, is of a character somewhat different 
from the preceding ; being nothing more than 
the declaration of those who oppose the idea 
of the existence of a Divinely constituted min- 
istry, that they themselves are not called. 

This argument has been much in vogue a- 
mong the proclaimers of Campbellism. One 
of them, some years ago in a public harangue, 
capt the climax of a number of anti-call argu- 
ments, by assuring his hearers, that he was 
neither " called nor sent to preach!" Upon 
which a drunk man in the congregation instant- 
ly responded, *' Then, sir, I think you had bet- 
ter sit down." Had this man been sober, we 
d^fifet whether he could have spoken more to 
tile p6int ; for certainly it argues a little temeri- 
ty, for any man to be constantly endeavoring 
to do that which he declares he has no authori- 
ty to do. But to return to the argument. We 
have not the least disposition to attempt to de- 
tract from its merits, or to weaken its force. 
That man who tells me he is not called to 
preachy I am bound to believe in this matter ; 
but to infer from this that all others are as dee- 
v2 



246 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

titute of a call as he is, would be strange logic. 
We have heard of an honest German who 
thought himself fully competent to prove that 
there was no such city as London, because he 
had crossed the ocean and never seen it. But 
this argument instead of showing the non ex- 
istence of the place, only proved the ignorance 
of the man. And so it is with the case before 
us. The proclaimer, who declares that God 
has never called him to minister in holy things, 
leaves entirely untouched the question of the 
reality of such a call in other cases, while he 
furnishes pretty conclusive evidence of his own 
incapacity and lack of authority for the work 
in which he is engaged. We pray that all 
such may see their folly, and turn from the er- 
ror of their ways,lest in the day of retribution, 
God should say to them as to the wicked, 
^< What hadst thou to do to declare my statutes, 
or to take my covenant in thy mouth ?" 

Having despatched these objections, we shall 
close the present topic. At its commencement 
we expressed the conviction that Mr. Camp- 
bell's opposition to the ministerial call had done 
much injury to Christianity. We are still of 
the same opinion. Whatever tends to subvert 
the established order of the church, and to di- 
minish that respect and regard which are just- 
ly due to its officers and their work, must in a 
ratio proportionate to its prevalence, operate to 
the disadvantage of true godliness. And who 
but a '* reformer," will question that Campbell- 
ism has had this tendency ? That God has set 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 247 

in the church pastors and ministers, selected 
by him, and set apart ** by prayer and the lay- 
ing on of hands," for preaching the Word and 
administering the ordinances, cannot be ration- 
ally doubted by any one who believes the Bi- 
ble, and carefully and impartially examines its 
contents. But the " restorer of the ancient or- 
der," has impiously cast all these aside, de- 
claring that God does not specially call any 
man to this work, that all men have equal au- 
thority to preach, to baptize, and to consecrate 
the elements of the Lord's supper ; and has 
thus to the utmost of his ability, not only sub- 
verted all ''rule and authority" in the church, 
but greatly detracted from that sanctity and so- 
lemnity that appertain to the institutions of the 
Lord ; and even joined with the infidel in pour- 
ing contempt upon his ministers and people. 
We have noticed for some years the striking 
similarity between Mr. Campbell and the avow- 
ed enemies of Christianity, in regard to the a- 
buse and ridicule with which they honor the 
ministers and people of the different sects of 
christians. This similarity has been observed 
by others ; and in one case, at least, it came 
near placing a devoted *' reformer" in rather 
an unpleasant attitude. A gentleman of our 
acquaintance who had been more than once 
honored with a seat in the legislature of Ken- 
tucky, became a convert to Campbellism while 
it was yet in its infancy. After some years, 
he was, without knowing its character, induced 
to subscribe ;/or one of those liberal publica- 



248 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

tions, that advocate the most barefaced atheism, 
and blaspheme the sacred principles of virtue 
and religion. When the paper came to hand, 
he was greatly delighted in reading its columns ; 
and showed it to some of his brethren, assu- 
ring them that it was an excellent auxiliary in 
the cause of the *' reformation." But they^ 
having more knowledge on such subjects, dis- 
covered its true character, and informed him 
that the editor was an avowed infidel. '*An 
infidel," said he, "it is not possible ! Why, 
he ridicules the sects, and preachers, and 
priests, and priest-craft, just like Mr. Camp- 
bell." And indeed, so it was. The champi- 
on of this modern *' reformation," the digger 
up of the '* ancient gospel" from beneath the 
accumulated rubbish of centuries, and the im- 
pious atheist, were found using the same weap- 
ons against the benevolent institutions of the 
day, and in opposition to the piety and wisdor.. 
of the age. We do not mean, however, to 
charge Mr. Campbell with atheism. Where 
he may land in future, we know not, iior is it 
our province even to guess ; but at present, we 
see no reason to suspect him of any bi^s in that 
direction. And yet the fact above stated, cannot 
be denied, and we do believe that his principles 
and practice, in reference to this subject alone, 
have greatly tended ^' to strengthen the hands of 
evil doers," and subvert the Scriptural order and e- 
conomy of G od' s church , and thereby, done more 
injury to the cause of Christianity, than every re- 
deeming feature of his "reformation," and all his 
talents and acquirements are likely to atone for. 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 249 

CHAPTER V. 

CONCLUSION. 

Mr. Campbell's dilemma considered respecting the opera- 
tion of the Spirit — bad effects of Mr. C.'s doctrine on 
this topic — recapitulation of the foregoing chapters — 
concluding remarks. 

The Millennial Harbinger for August 1835, 
contains a communication in relation to some of 
our remarks that seems to require a passing no- 
tice, before we make our exit. It was written 
from James Town, Ohio, by one who appears 
to be as thoroughly Campbellized as any other 
reformer. We do not notice it, either because 
we have any desire to engage the chivalrous 
writer, or because we consider the merit of his 
p*;oduction, to require any attention ; but for the 
ptirpose of stating distinctly one consequence of 
Mr. Campbell's system, to which we do not re- 
collect to have ad verted » The article referred 
to contaljis the following sentences ; — 

*' Now, friend Phillips, answer the following 
question," and I will engage to place you be- 
tween the horns of a dilemma, from which you 
cannot extricate yourself:- — 

Is the belief of an abstract, or direct opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, necessary in order to 
said operation ? 

If you answer in the affirmative, then away 
goes your position ; for that would make the op- 
eration through/«i7/t, and not direct or abstract, 
11^ 



250 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

If you answer in the negative, then why 
preach the necessity of believing it, seeing that 
the Spirit operates to the saving of men without 
the belief. 

You have wasted, and are still wasting, much 
time in preaching and writing to men about 
that which will do them no good ; for the belief 
or unbelief of the thing, does not alter the mat- 
ter. 

ICIP Now get out from between these horns, 
if you can." 

The writer of the above has only copied and 
echoed the argument, if argument it may be 
called, of his file leader. Mr. Campbell had 
previously assumed the same ground, and his 
correspondent, of course, considered himself in 
an impregnable fortress, while repeating it. 
But let us look at the question. " Is the belief 
of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, neces- 
sary in order to that operation ?" We answer, 
no. So far as said operation is necessary to 
convince the sinner of sin, the work will be 
done, even though he should disbelieve the ex- 
istence of the Holy Spirit ; for one object for 
which the Spirit was given, was to ''reprove 
the world of sin, because they believe not;" 
from which declaration of the Savior, it is clear 
that his Spirit operates not only through faith, 
but upon those who are in unbelief. But though 
men are irresistibly convicted, it does not fol- 
low that they are converted in the same man- 
ner; nor does the admission, that sinners* are 
reproved by the Spirit in the absence of their 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 251 

belief in the reality of his operations, drive us 
to the necessity of supposing them regenerated 
and sanctified without that belief. The former 
is plainly taught in the Scriptures ; the latter 
we have no authority for. The first operations 
of the Spirit are given, to arouse the sinner and 
show him his danger , and this is effected, 
either with or without the existence of even 
the faith of a devil — and if he attend the call, 
and improve the grace thus imparted, the same 
Spirit excites and aids him to repent, and to 
exercise that faith — reliance upon a crucified 
Savior — through which he receives pardon, and 
is restored to the favor of God. But he has 
power to ''resist the Holy Ghost," as did the 
Jews of old, and while he does this, either by 
hardening his heart, or by blasphemously deny- 
ing the existence or the operations of the Spirit, 
we are assured that there is no hope of his sal- 
vation. Where then are the horns of the above 
dilemma ? They have lost their potency ; and 
indeed, they have no existence, except in the 
imaginations of the writer, and of those who, 
like him, have become *' wise above that which 
is written." We have no difficulty, however, 
in accounting for his. mistake in this matter. 
Every thing considered, it was perfectly natural 
for him to suppose, he had placed us between 
the horns of an inextricable dilemma. All his 
notions of religion had been derived from Mr. 
Campbell, who had repeatedly told him that the 
views of the ultra Calvinist, in regard to the 
w6rk of the Spirit, and those of the Arminian, 



252 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

resulted in the same conclusion; and as the 
former consider the work of regeneration to be 
effected by an irresistible operation of the Spirit, 
the latter, of course, must end in a similar con- 
clusion. All this, we say, Mr. Campbell had 
told him — he was bound to consider it as true as 
the "ancient gospel," and hence the origin of his 
imaginary dilemma. But if he will study the Bi- 
ble, place less dependence upon the opinions of 
his leader, and make himself acquainted with the 
doctrines of the Methodist church, we venture 
to guess, that he will not, in future, attempt to 
involve an Arminian in any such dilemmas. 

But we have yet another reason, and one of 
no ordinary weight, for endeavoring to teach 
and defend the doctrine of Spiritual influence. 
Connected, as it is, with other doctrines and 
duties of vital importance, we are convinced 
that its rej action cannot but lead to the most 
direful of consequences. Let Mr. Campbell's 
views upon this subject prevail — ^let it be a con- 
ceded point among christians, that the Holy 
Spirit only operates through the Word, just as 
the thoughts and ideas of a Locke or a Newton 
are conveyed ib «s through their writings, and 
if it does not render prayer an unmeaning cere- 
mony, and ultimately banish it from the earth, 
we are very much mistaken. The apostle 
taught, that prayers should bemade for allmen, 
because God would have all men to be saved. 
But what connection can exist between ouf . 
prayers and the salvation of sinners, unless^in 
answer to them, the Holy Spirit convicts, and 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 253 

brings them to the knowledge of the truth ? 
None in the world. Strike this doctrine from 
the christian system, and we shall be doomed 
to see our unconverted friends perish in their 
sins, without the privilege of entreating the Al- 
mighty in mercy to turn them from the error 
of their ways. And another unavoidable con- 
clusion will be, that prayer for Spiritual blessings 
of any description, is wholly useless and unne- 
cessary to the christian character. It will^ 
therefore, follow, that men instead of praying 
" without ceasing," will cease to pray ; and 
thus the most important of christian duties, be 
driven from the world. Here we must land, 
if we surrender the teachings of the Spirit, 
or consider its influence as synonymous with 
moral eiFects of the written Word. All, it is 
true, who make this surrender, may not immedi- 
ately be led to look on prayer as a vain thing, and 
to abandon its performance ; for the opinions and 
practice of some are happily inconsistent ; but 
the prevalence of such principles must tend to 
weaken our hold on prayer, and to produce an 
imaginary independence of the Divine Being. 

These are the natural, and. *o some extent, 
the unavoidable fruits, of Mr. Campbell's doc- 
trines ; and, as such, ^re already visible among 
his followers. Some of his teachers ridicule 
prayer in many of their discourses, and occa- 
sionally, if not uniformly, dispense with it in 
their public congregations ; and all of them, so 
far as -we have information, teach the penitent 
that it would be not only useless, but blasphe- 

W 



254 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

mou3 for him to pray for pardon — that he has 
nothing to do but be immersed ; and the result 
of such teachings have made professed chris- 
tians — zealous Campbellites — who acknowl- 
edge they have no practical acquaintance with 
the duty under consideration — who confess they 
have never prayed on any occasion, public or 
private ; and who seem to glory in having 
found a religion that does not require the cross 
bearing of any such burdensome ceremonies. 
Now it is not contended that every Campbellite 
has gone to this extreme, but it is confidently 
asserted that some have, and firmly believed, 
that in so doing they have only carried out their 
system of doctrines to its legitimate results. In 
regard to the duty of prayer, Antinomianism 
and Campbellism after starting at points as far 
asunder as the north from the south pole, meet 
upon a common level. The former, by teach- 
ing that God saves men irresistibly, and even 
against their wills, forbids the penitent to ask \ 
that he may receive mercy, and renders prayer i 
under any circumstances wholly useless ; and 
the latter by assuming, that the Lord Jesus, af- 
ter finishing the work of redemption, left his 
Spirit in his Word, and has nothing farther to 
do in converting sinners, s^rrives at the same 
conclusion. And here each has exalted itself 
against the truth — and that top upon a point 
of the most vital importance. The Scrip- 
tures, both by precept and example, abundantly 
teach the pardon of sin in answer to prayer, as 
weUas persevering in that duty in order to eter- 



i 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 255 

nal salvation, wliile they give us no reason to 
believe that ever a prayerless sinner was 
pardoned or saved; but Campbellism open- 
ly proclaims that sinners are pardoned vi^ith- 
out one word of prayer, and by necessary 
consequence from the principles assumed, 
that their final salvation is, in no sense, de- 
pendent upon the performance of this duty. 
And this is the legitimate fruit of that notion 
concerning spiritual influence, against which 
our labors, have been directed. Such a doctrine 
is God dishonoring and soul destroying in its 
tendency. It is calculated to make " blind lea- 
ders of the blind," and to induce whoever re- 
ceives it to cry " peace, peace," while there is 
no peace, and to expect salvation in a way that 
God has never ordained. And yet, in oppos- 
ing this doctrine, we are gravely told, that we 
are "preaching and writing to men about that 
which will do them no good — that the belief, 
or unbelief of the thing does not alter the mat- 
ter." Mr. Campbell and his correspondent, 
may think to involve us in dilemmas, such as 
the above, and talk of the inutility of correctly 
understanding the doctrine of Divine influence, 
as taught in the Bibl^, as much as they please. 
Such things may pass very well with those who 
look upon the bishop of Bethany as an oracle ; 
but we have little fear that they will be much 
lauded by men of sound judgment, and correct 
Bible information. 

We now proceed to sum up and present in a 
condensed form the positions and arguments of 



256 CAMP3ELLISM EXPOSED. 

the foregoing essays. A very brief recapitula- 
tion is all that can be given. 

In the progress of these essays we have exam- 
ined the principal features in the superstructure 
of the Campbellite reformation, commencing 
with its foundation stone, baptismal regenera- 
tion, which we found among the rubbish of the 
papal apostasy, and after testing its claims by 
the Word of God, discovered it to have no other 
authority than the erroneous interpretation of 
some four or five isolated texts ; while some 
hundreds of passages were found to teach a di- 
rectly contrary doctrine. — remission not by ^^a- 
ter, but hy faith. And knowing that Mr. Camp- 
bell does not extend this blessing to those who 
have received baptism, according to the ordina- 
ry understanding of the import of that ordi- 
nance, but confines it to those who have been 
immersed, we patiently investigated every pas- 
sage of Scripture that seems to have any bearing 
upon the mode of baptism, and found no proof 
that Jesus Christ ever commanded immersion, 
or that the apostles practiced it in one solitary 
instance. The conclusion, therefore, at which 
we have arrived, is, that Mr. Campbell has 
made the soul's salvation, to depend upon the 
performance of an ordinance in a mode that is, 
at least, of questionable authority. But how- 
ever this be, we have proved, that the object 
for which he administers baptism, and the effect 
he ascribes to it, are contrary to the views of 
every christian denomination among us, wheth- 
er Baptist or otherwise ; that with him immer- 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 257 

sion and regeneration are synonymous terms, 
so that no one can be born of God until he is 
immersed ; and that these views are opposed in 
common by Baptists, Methodists and Presbyte- 
rians, and have no more authority from Scrip- 
ture than the fable of transubstantiation. 

We have, in the next place, inquired for the 
evidence to which Campbellites resort as proof 
of their being in a state of favor with God, and 
discvoered it not to vary materially from the 
means by which they profess to have obtained 
that favor. We had previously found immer- 
sion, with them, to be the act of turning to 
God, and now we discovered them referring to 
their immersion as evidence that they had turn- 
ed to God ; and contending that any man, who, 
historically, believes the gospel facts and goes 
down into the water, is regenerated, and may 
always refer to that circumstance, as proof of 
his justified state. We then looked around up- 
on those who had passed through Mr. Camp- 
bell's "regenerating bath," and found scores 
and hundreds, not only continuing to " wallow 
in the mire," but whose last state really appear- 
ed worse than the first. It therefore appeared 
clear, that this kind of evidence was not to be 
trusted ; for if immersion proves one man to be 
a child of God, it proves every immersed per- 
son to be the same ; but many of these are still 
in the " gall of bitterness ;" and hence, the cir- 
cumstance of having been buried in the water, 
proves no man to be a christian. And upon 
opening the Bible, we found it fully to sustain 
w2 



258 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

this conclusion ; for the only evidence in proof 
of our son-ship, we are there authorized to re- 
ly upon, we have shown to be, not water, but 
the witness of that Spirit which *' beareth wit- 
ness with our spirit that we are the children of 
God." And as Mr. Campbell's creed, rejects 
this kind of testimony, and substitutes anoth- 
er, wholly unknown to the Scriptures, and that 
can, in no case, be depended upon, we found 
here another strong reason for rejecting his sys- 
tem. 

The next feature of the '* reformation" that 
has passed in review, is that rejection and con- 
demnation of creeds, universal among Campbel- 
lites, and their professed exemption from secta- 
rianism and party spirit. And here we proved 
that the circumstances of the case render creeds 
and confessions of faith, expedient, if not abso- 
lutely indispensable ; and that their existence, 
instead of necessarily engendering strife, is the 
most likely method of preserving peace ; and 
that it cannot be otherwise until human nature 
is remodeled, and the children of men brought 
to see " eye to eye." On this subject, it was 
also shpwn, that while Mr. Campbell glories in 
having no creed, he gives evidence in Ms own 
person, that " great men are not always wise ;" 
because he has a creed as much as ^jr Metho- 
dist, Presbyterian, or Baptist ; the only differ- 
ence, being, that theirs is printed, and may be 
known as their religious belief, while his, though 
scattered through his writings, and proclaimed 
by all his teachers, has never been printed in a 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 259 

separate form. Here too his anti-sectarian pre- 
tensions were examined, and found to be so ut- 
terly groundless, that while he professes to aim 
at the destruction of sectarianism, it would be 
difficult to find more bigoted and furious secta- 
rians than he and his party ; and that his terms 
of union require all christians to receive his 
semi-papal notions, instead of the pure doctrines 
of the gospel ; and thus he would destroy secta- 
rianism, by building up one great sect under his 
own banners, and by substituting Campbellism 
for Christianity. This we found to be the ten- 
dency, and we honestly believe it to be the de- 
sign, of all his labors and professions to promote 
a union among christians. 

The last article of the system, to which our 
attention has been directed, is its rejection of a 
Divine call to the ministry. On this point, in 
addition to explaining what is meant by such a 
call, and meeting the principal objections urged 
against it, we fully proved that a ministry di- 
vinely appointed did once exist in the church, 
and was continued down to the close of the 
New Testament. And upon these facts we 
rested the controversy ; for in the absence of 
all proof that this ministry has been taken away, 
we are bound to infer that it still exists. But 
this proof has never been given, nor can it be. 
We have, therefore, been conducted to the con- 
clusion, that every true minister of Christ is 
still " called of God as was Aaron ;" and that 
every professed proclaimer of the go«peI, who 
acknowledges he never received this call, fur- 



260 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

nishes proof, not only of a heretical creed, but 
of his total lack of authority for what he profes- 
ses to do. 

We have now taken a rapid survey of the 
leading topics to which our essays have been 
devoted, and these include the prominent fea- 
tures and pretensions of Mr. Campbell's system. 
Such a system, we consider a gross caricature 
of Christianity, and of a tendency so deleterious, 
that every good man ought to oppose it. For 
though we are constrained to hope that these 
doctrines exist only as a deteriorating ingredient, 
in the minds of many whose lives manifest the 
presence of true piety ; we find it, at times, ex- 
tremely difiicult to believe that Campbellism, 
in its full and perfected form, can be otherwise 
than wholly incompatible with experimental re- 
ligion, and genuine Christianity. Be this as it 
may, it is unquestionably of e\dl tendency, cal- 
culated to lull sinners to sleep, and induce them 
to rest in the form of godliness, while they 
deny, and are wholly destitute of the power. 

Since these essays have been in progress, 
we understand that Mr. Campbell has paid 
some attention to them through the Harbinger. 
What his strictures have been, we idaow not. 
For though, in the habit of arrogating to him- 
self a great deal of fairness and fearlessness in 
regard to his opponents, in this instance he did 
not choose to favor us with any number, or 
numbers of his Harbinger in which our rem arks 
were noticed. We do not mention this, how- 
ever, by way of complaint, but only to let the 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 261 

world know that when Mr. Campbell censures 
those who oppose his water system, for failing 
to furnish him with copies of their productions, 
that he condemns in others what he practices 
himself. Perhaps if his remarks had fallen in 
our way, we might consider it necessary to ex- 
tend our essays a little further ; but having nev- 
er seen them, we have not the power of a reply ; 
nor do we much regret it. For in this case, 
we presume, he has not departed from his usual 
course, as a controversialist, which we consider 
to savor of any thing else, as much as it does of 
candor and fair reasoning. His ordinary course 
has been to evade the force of that reasoning 
which he was wholly unable to refute, either 
by a sweeping contempt of those who use it, or 
by charging them with misrepresentation, and 
endeavoring, by seizing upon some incidental 
point, to call off the mind of the reader from 
the question at issue ; and we have no reason to 
suppose that our strictures have shared a diffe- 
rent fate. Be this as it may, we feel very little 
anxiety on the subject. To enter the arena of 
controversy with the great champion of the 
** ancient order," or with any of his little cham- 
pions, is entirely beyond our ambition. Had 
this been our object, it might, long since, have 
been effected. Even during the publication of 
these numbers, we have had several opportuni- 
ties of " changing shots," with some of the ex- 
clusive gospel teachers of the day, who appeared 
to be full of fight, and anxious for the conflict ; 
and had we been desirous to expose them, as 



262 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

individuals, to the scorn and pity of an intelli- 
gent community, we had, and still have amplfe 
means at command. But to engage them seem- 
ed not the most likely method of eliciting truth ; 
and as it would, virtually, have called us off 
from that examination of Mr. Campbell's doc- 
trines which was our object, we have let them 
pass, and kept on the " even tenor of our way." 
Our object is now accomplished. What we 
have written is before the reader, who will, 
we hope, be competent to judge for himself, 
whether Campbellism be of God or of men. 
As to what Mr. Campbell or his adherents may 
think, or say, in relation to our feeble efforts , 
we feel very little solicitude. Among them are 
individuals whom we esteem and love. To 
obtain their ill will, is by no means desirable ; 
but to court their favor at the expense of the 
truths of the Bible, would render us guilty in 
the sight of God, and contemptible in the esti- 
mation of all good men. We have written 
from a sense of duty, and in the fear of God ; 
and let them speak or write about u§ ^s they 
may, we feel a clear conscience, and so far as 
personal or party ambition and vanity ate con- 
cerned, are not aware of the least anxiety of 
mind. 

We are now about to take leave of the sub- 
ject. In the present form, we shall not resume 
it ; and its further prosecution, under any other 
form is, at present, a matter of entire uncertain- 
ty. We take no delight in what is called reli- 
gious controversy ; and have never engaged in 



CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 263 

it except when convinced that the cause of 
truth required it. Such have been our convic- 
tions on the present occasion. We had beheld 
doctrines which we beUeved to be of the most 
dangerous character, taking root among the 
people. These, rendered doubly seductive by 
the confident manner and acknowledged talents 
of some of their propagators, had spread into 
different sections of the west, deluded many 
souls, and were leading them to inevitable ruin. 
This system, we were satisfied, could not bear 
the test of sober, Scriptural investigation ; and 
we considered it our dr.ty to aid in setting it 
before the world in its true colors. A sense of 
duty, therefore, induced us to commence these 
strictures; and numerous assurances that our 
labor was not in vain, from various individuals 
in the surrounding states, have encouraged us 
to prosecute the subject thus far. Throughout 
the whole, we have aimed at candor and fair- 
ness with our opponents. That we have, in no 
instance, given a slight erroneous coloring to 
any- of their sentiments, is more than we dare 
affirm Tbiit we are confident that this has been 
done ixk no material point, and know that we 
have not intended it in any matter, however 
small. And if through ignorance, or hastiness, 
our statements should, in any respect, be change- 
able with misrepresentation, we are sorry for it ; 
and shall be ready to correct the error, whenev- 
er we are satisfied of its existence. But in 
truth, we are not conscious of having written 
any thing under the influence of that sort of ag- 



264 CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 

gravation of spirit, that would be likely to pro- 
duce exaggerated statements. With Mr. Camp- 
bell and his partisans, as individuals, we have 
no quarrel. We bear them no malice, and wish 
them no evil, but all possible good. We do 
not, however, expect their friendship. Experi- 
ence, long ago, taught us that many of them do 
not soon forgive those who expose their doc- 
trine ; and that they are ever ready to cry out, 
** persecution, and misrepresentation." To such 
a charge, we shall plead, not guilty; but hope 
to bear it unmoved. With us, it is a small 
thing to be judged of men. We are conscious 
of our approach to the judgment seat of Christ, 
and under this consciousness have we written. 
A few years more, and all controveisy with us, 
and our opponents, will be lost in the gi*ave. 
The light of eternity will unfold the truth. And 
whatever the result may be, we have, so far as 
honesty of purpose is concerned, no fear of the 
scrutiny of that Day, in regard to one thought 
or sentence we have written, concerning Mr. 
Campbell, his doctrines or his followers. Jpur 
prayer is that we, our opponents, and alj-bur 
readers, may know the truth and do it, arid be 
prepared for spending an eternity free from er- 
ror, sin and suffering. 



THE END. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. 

Tiitroduction of the subject— Mr. Campbeirs doctrine of 

Baptism stated— Texts brought to support Campbell- 

;sm considered, viz. Acts ii. 38. Jo. iiL 5. &c. Mark 

i 16. 1 Pet. ui. 21. Titus iii. 21 Page 16 



CHAPTER n. 

FAITH. 

. — literal meaning — Baptism, prayer and con- 
conditions of justification — justification by 

Q — justifying faith as combining reliance and 
.h assent — faith as connected with pardon does 
ude Baptism or other works — faith of Abraha- 
nsidered — objections against the doctrine of 

*^he condition of justification 35 

CHAPTER HI. 

VINE AGENCY— THE SPIRIT. 

dm rejects Divine Agency on the heart — in 

ecting Remission with Baptism, like Roman 

olicism, it contradicts Paul — it enjoins an impossi- 

.rm of Salvation — Campbellite doctrine of Assu- 

17 X 265 



266 CONTENTS. 

ranee — fallacy of inferring our Acceptance from our 
Baptism — cases Exemplifying the foregoing — Mr. C. 
quoted — Irreverent and tBIasphemouis' language of 
Campbellites respecting the Spirit— Sciipture evidence 
of his direct influence on the heart— assurance of God's 
favor by the Spirit — evangeiical Protestants are sub- 
stantially agreed, on this point 77 

CHAPTER IV. 

MODE OF BAFIISM. 

Import of the Greek word, Baptizo — import of the 
phrases Li Jorclari, going up out of the water, — 
Baptism at JGnon— consideration of Rom. vi. 3-6. and 
Col. ii. 12 — reasons for baptism by sprinkling — those 
baptized on the day of Pentecost — the jailor — St. Paul 
— Cornelius — Keasons against immersioji — Baptism of 
the Spirit — concluding remarks on the mode^. . 120 

CHAPTER Y. 

CREEDS.- 

Campbellites profess to reject all creeds— creeds 
produce sects — those who use creeds do noteqi 
to scripture— uses of creeds— they shew in wl^at ^ 
scripture is received— they promote peace and b- 
ny— do not prevent the free use of opmion- 
bellites have a creed. " 

CHAPTER VI. 

SECTS— SECTARIANjSiM. 

Mr. Campbell imitates the Pope-Camii>emsm l^v^jarly 
^ctarian-adialogue-Campbelhtes exc^d m bigo^ 
"TdTntolerance-They idolize their leaderTassume 
Se name i2e/brmer.-are properly Campbellites. l^^ 



CONTENTS. 267 

CHAPTER VII. 

CALL 'TO TliE MmiSTRY. 

Unchristian sneers of Mr. Campbell on this subject — o. 
call defined — evangelical christians substantially agi'eed 
on this point — the tme call lays no claims to inspiration 
or miraculous gifts — such a call possible — necessary — 
prevailed in the primitive church — and has not ceased 
— objections answered — mischievous tendency of Mr. 
Campbell's doctrine 219 

CHAPTER VIII. 

, CONCLUSION. 

Mr. Campbell's dilemma considered respecting the opera- 
ti^n^ of the Spirit — bad effects of Mr. C's. doctrine on 
this*li)pie--recapitulation of the foregoing chapters — 
concluding remarks 249 



V- 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 645 351 5 



